Hotei Ratin : “s 7 hats. 7 : . ¢ 
: ; pee 


SeErest 


r be 7 
LN aM Sy A at WO 


mi rent 
' : ree 
‘was fetetatabe erate 
ae ce : Aube . aw. = = ars te EE Se 
ie “9 7 ays 3 ep ec: : be he tone alginate Bs Nove TA 
Bee trtlea en rarities ri aa rarities Rene a oa 


. See : : 
Rytetateiwls he tn x : 
ne tohntiy Peale she ys eS precneboaters 
; 


pai 


che rie atiet ea 
Ye 


a 
Re Ayla a ede abel 
eC Nar 
ye <u 





Sees “TS 


ee 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library — 


https ://archive.org/details/groupintelligencOOking 


AC SS eae PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW PUBLICATIONS “HOLE NO. 153 
No. 6 1924 


Psychological Monographs 


EDITED BY. 


JAMES ROWLAND ANGELL, Yare UNrve_rsity 
HOWARD C. WARREN, Princeton University (Review) 
JOHN B. WATSON, New York (J. of Exp. Psychol.) 
MADISON BENTLEY, University or Ittino1s (Index) 
S. W. FERNBERGER, Unrversity oF PENNSYLVANIA (Bulletin) 


A Group Intelligence Scale for 
Primary Grades 


BY / 
V. 
FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW COMPANY 
PRINCETON, N. J. 


Acents: G. E. STECHERT & CO., Lonpon (2 Star Yard, Carey St., W.C.) 
Paris (16, rue de Condé) 








ae sh sae vases 
eel iT ad poe : 


























; ish Wi. | Piping 

a nies ear ee 

STL RTO Let PRO 
rp PONy , 


ne cE Lenya) if. ty . 
nea Gee rane sees wes’) Sowa siciiee aah Mpa si 
oa i ‘ si |. Lye ue ony AHL, 4; shy, ‘ga ver yi uy? oN, Lee ae 

, hia tty ay Tp ay Bay tee vhs avail & 





@. _ Jacek "aie eden a es Ps ws Ai ee 
ak a Aye tees iydene rive tee 
' y ‘ 
: fie ‘ ‘ 
. . 
i . . a me 
a he Ss 
. > 
’ 
_ 
¥ a yj; 
} +; . 
ol $ pt S° 3a ee oy a er ae lo Ae 
4 : “se o> aS gta a ? af ; 2254.5 aes 
Sin 3s _ 4 “4 a "ah : 
; ; y ai e 5 a, rm wpeies® 
ry! ta > ‘ 
VES Te Ta 
os . tng a ¥ 
; 4 
* . “ 
‘ ‘ 
| 
4” ‘ 
q ' oe he 
Pay hay ‘ ‘ * 
' ta 4 
. . ., ~ 
oe : ya ay 
‘ 
=. i 
‘+ of o44 rate 
7 é : ha 5a 
Ligt EMS FEY bBo sb ats bes | 
7 
¥ 1s pa 
”% 
1 
“ ao ; E 
= y 
nbs ae Ne “ - 
_ i, ee i 
Pay : $ 
54 aid 
ar ; p ey 
‘ = “ ; 
; - J co . 3 ore ‘ iy 
} n A Vad’ “*, a be ahs 3H) ab: “irdae 4 ine 
J . eae ‘xing: ‘ * 
- : “oe. ¥, ae Bai 
Bik a . ’ ‘ : she 
(Re pS cae eaten rea eats “ae: Fn, as ae ae i aote/ 
a) j = ee ‘ Ps 
| eee : tery : oe eee Aen) ve 
Py ; bel ‘ ? > _ 
nM : eth 
f ¢ 
f { > t ark ; 
ij sy 5 ct 
‘ * “sr 
As i. i 
oF - r 
Wi 
q ¥ 
nai Ge ee ‘, rr 


PREFA TORY NOTE 


The interval of three years which has elapsed since the comple- 
tion of this study and the publication of the scale would suggest 
certain possible revisions of phrasing; but since no definite reason 
has appeared for altering materially the statements made herein, 
the writer has preferred to let it appear substantially in its original 
form. The revised grade-norms cited on page 33 based on returns 
from various quarters since the scale was taken over for publica- 
tion by the Bureau of Educational Research (and since distributed 
by the Public School Publishing Company) represent the principal 
addition. 

The writer welcomes this opportunity to express his real indebt- 
edness to numerous teachers and associates in the University of 
Chicago for very helpful criticisms and suggestions, and particu- 
larly to Professor Frank N. Freeman of the School of Education, 
under whose direction the study was made, and to Professor 
Harvey Carr, of the Department of Psychology. He is also grate- 
ful to the many school administrators and teachers whose cour- 
teous cooperation has made this investigation possible. 


te | 
‘ 
F 
: 
} 
wo By 
' { 
if z ) 
tse 
oe 
j uA 
Mls 
jee, 
{ ca 
\ t 15} 
{ oe 
fu fi, 
an te 
i } 
i 
u 
(i 
i 
: 
fa 
j 
e 
yi fii 
j 
a 
f 
’ 
‘ 
> 


gu yitoees 





doe Nae 
ce | pan: 


A> GROUPAINTELLIGENCHISCALE, FOR 
PRIMARY GRADES 


INTRODUCTION 


Due both to the stimulus of the Army experience and to the 
demand for economy, the tendency of the mental testing move- 
ment in the schools has come to be definitely in the direction of the 
development and refinement of group tests. Various workers have 
designed more or less satisfactory tests for the upper grades and 
high schools, but until comparatively recently the primary grades 
have been neglected. This has doubtless been due to the difficulty 
of devising tests for pupils who have little or no skill in reading. 
Nevertheless, if there is any stage in the school course where there 
is need for tests of that general mental ability to which the term 
“general intelligence” is customarily applied, it certainly is in the 
first three grades of the elementary school, where the dominating 
school habits and attitudes are acquired. The need of lessening the 
amount of non-promotion with its attendant expensiveness and 
discouragement, the desirability of putting each child in homo- 
geneous groups where he can make progress with maximal effi- 
ciency, the economy of selecting early the exceptionally gifted and 
exceptionally slow children and giving them appropriate treat- 
ment at the beginning of their school course, these and many other 
almost universally recognized needs call for some sort of instru- 
ment for selecting different grades of ability which will be suit- 
able for the years before the child has gained sufficient skill in 
reading and writing to use tests which presuppose those abilities. 
The Binet test, with its various revisions, has served as such an 
instrument. This is not the place to discuss the precise degree of 
efficiency with which it has served its purpose. But no one will 
deny that the expenditure of time, and hence of money, called for 
in administering the test to not more than ten or twelve pupils per 
day per examiner is prohibitive of its use in most places, unless it 
be with a limited number of cases, usually exceptional children, 
whose superiority or inferiority is so conspicuous that a mental 
test is, to a certain extent, superfluous. While most teachers have 
some acquaintance with the general purpose of the mental testing 
movement, and perhaps some vague notion of its nature, the large 


2 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


majority of teachers (keeping in mind particularly the vast num- 
ber in rural and village schools) probably have never seen such a 
test given, and have neither the equipment, training, nor time to 
give it. If satisfactory tests can be devised, their most conspicu- 
ous advantage will be the economy of time and cost, and their al- 
most certain influence upon the introduction of mental testing, and 
eventually of other scientific educational practices, into a large 
number of schools which have hitherto been little affected by 
scientific movements. 

The fact that a number of workers have, within recent years, 
undertaken to devise group test scales for the primary grades, has 
not deterred the writer from undertaking a similar task. There is, 
it would seem, a need for several good group tests for these grades, 
for two reasons: first, in order that as wide a variety as possible 
of types of material may be compared, to determine their relative 
value for this purpose, and second, because, in the writer’s firm 
belief, no one test should be relied upon to serve as a sole means 
for determining the disposition of a child’s case; rather, it would 
seem, will the desirable practice be to administer, during the first 
year or two of the school career, a number of tests of proved 
value, in order to counteract the variability of conditions under 
which each test is given which may prevent the child from giving 
an adequate account of himself, and in order to disclose his pecu- 
liarities of response to different sorts of problems. 

Among the requirements of a good group intelligence scale for 
primary grades are the following: 

1. It must permit of being given to a group of pupils at once, 
preferably to an entire room. 

2. It should, if possible, dispense entirely with reading and 
writing content, since varying school attainment in these subjects 
is likely to obscure differences in native endowment. 

3. It should be brief, to avoid fatigue and waning of interest. 

4. It should be easy and uniform, both to administer and to 
score, to permit its use by relatively untrained examiners. 

5. Instructions should be simple enough for all children to 
grasp, without such elaboration or repetition as will cause loss of 
interest among the quicker pupils. : 


6. 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 3 


It should be interesting to the pupils, utilizing the play mo- 


tive, in order to claim and hold attention at a maximum. 


oa 


It should show as high a correlation as possible with all 


other available criteria of general intelligence. 


8. 


Norms for age, grade, sex, etc., should be based on a sufh- 


ciently large number of cases to be representative and reliable. 
Of these points in relation to the scale herein described, more 
will be said later. 


PROCEDURE 


The procedure followed in formulating and standardizing this 
scale may be summarized in the following steps: 


Oe 


Ta. 
12. 


eee 


. Devising the tests. 


First try-out to eliminate useless material and formulate in- 
structions. 

Arranging material for preliminary group test. 

Formulating instructions, determining time, etc. (technique). 

Giving preliminary group test. 

Scoring papers and tabulating results to facilitate computa- 
tions. 

Computation of correlations for 

a—Individual tests 

b—Parts within tests 

c—Total score 

d—Various combinations of parts with such criteria as 

a—Binet mental age 

*b—Teachers’ estimates of intelligence. 

Determining final make-up of scale. 

Preparing scale for giving final form in large numbers. 


. Giving test to a considerable number of primary grade 


groups. 

Scoring papers and tabulating results. 

Computation of norms (median, quartile, decile) for each 
a—Grade 

b—Age 

c—Sex. 

Obtaining from teachers analytical comments on cases where 
test score and teachers’ estimates disagree. 


4 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


14. Analysis of scores, norms, teachers’ comments, and pecu- 
liarities of response. 
These steps will be considered in the order named. 


Tue Tests 

In devising the tests to be tried out, three principles were con- 
sciously followed: (1) to use no tests others are using; (2) to 
adapt for non-verbal form such tests as have been shown in the 
past to have high value as criteria of general intelligence, such as 
the Opposites test, Series Completion test, Analogies test, etc. ;. 
(3) to use tests calling for judgment and thought activities rather 
than tests of perception, simple association, memory, etc. 

The tests first devised were ten in number. Those which were 
retained and used in group form are illustrated in Plates I to VI 
and the instructions accompanying them are given in Appendix II. 

a. Simple Directions test (ten parts). Some of these parts were 
later combined with the Right Answers test. ; 

b. Opposites test (twenty parts). 

c. Associated Objects test (twenty parts). 

d. Right Answers test (a miscellaneous group of fifteen single 
tests, most of which are described later). 

e. Series Completion test (twenty parts). 

f. Analogies test (twenty parts). . 

e. Form test, or “Dissected Blocks” test, based on the square 
(ten parts). | 

h. Form test, based on the circle (ten parts). 

i. Path tracing test, in which ten interweaving lines, distin- 
guished by a simple symbolic mark (circle, square, cross, etc.) at 
the beginning of each line, were to be traced across the page, and 
a corresponding symbol marked at the end of each. 

j. Domino test (sixteen parts), a variety of “Series Comple- 
tion” test, in which a row of five dominoes were shown, one 
blank, to be filled in with dots in such a way as to complete the 
series. Somewhat similar tests are included in the Series Comple- 
tion test. 

These tests were tried out on individual children, about twenty 
in number, taken at random from the first three grades, for the 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 5 


purpose of observing typical reactions to the various tests, elimi- 
nating valueless material, discovering and correcting specific de- 
fects, formulating instructions, and ascertaining the relative diffi- 
culty of the various parts within each test. The children were taken 
separately, usually in two half-hour periods; and while the test 
was made as informal as possible, a record of the responses and 
time was kept. In most cases the child was asked to respond by 
pointing to the correct figure or drawing. Where the response re- 
quired drawing, a ground glass or strip of paper was laid over the 
test, upon which the child marked. Thus only one copy of the pre- 
liminary form was used. The directions as originally prepared 
were gradually amended until a clear, simple, and unambiguous 
form of expression was reached. 

From this series of tests a tentative group was prepared, by 
selection and combination, for use as a preliminary group test. 
Parts that were ambiguous, too easy, or apparently too difficult 
for any child to solve, were omitted. The Path-tracing test (i) 
‘was eliminated, because, both from analysis of the test and from 
observation of children’s reactions to it, it seemed to be primarily 
a sensory-motor test, measuring motor control rather than intelli- 
gence. The Domino test (j) was eliminated, as duplicating the 
other Series Completion test (e). Some of the Simple Directions 
tests were combined with the Right Answers tests. The Form test 
based on the circle was eliminated in favor of the one based on the 
square, but several parts of the former were carried over and adap- 
ted to the square form. 


THE PRELIMINARY GROUP TEST 

This left six tests which are illustrated in Plates I to VI inclu- 
sive. Plates I to IV, it may be remarked, represent the scale in its 
final form, while Plates V and VI show in reduced form the 
materials which, together with the other four tests, were used in 
the preliminary group test. This material was duplicated by 
mimeograph and stapled in booklets of six sheets (three tests) 
each, so the preliminary group test was given in two parts. The 
first part included : 

a. Associated Objects test (fourteen parts, exclusive of the 


FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


PuiaTe I 
(Reduced about two-fifths) 


For Grades 1, 2, 3 and 4 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 


Urbana, Illinois 5 
BUREAU OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 


Kingsbury Primary Group Intelligence Scale, Form A 
Devised by Forrest A. Kingsbury 











oc oo000000 
Oopocoqcoo0 
gongrjoodo 


Total Score 


Write Pupil’s Scores Here 


oD eS Mental Age ... 


Q-(ReAW) x 2 cessssnteee 


Chronolog- 
3-Rights x 2 ical Age .......01 Marcbisvics a 


-Ri 2 
Soe ie Intelligence 
Quotient = = 


Nn 
Mihi ts 





INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 


Prate IT 
(Reduced about two-fifths) 


APSE 


O 


[aire OF) ae] 





@ 


SHLISOddO 


FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


Er Arhe tL 
(Reduced about two-fifths) 





COMPLETION 


ETT) lele|_lelelo 











oe roe 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 


IV 


PLATE 
(Reduced about two-fifths 


ie 





10 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


TES V anp VI 
ane q about seven-tenths) 


ee 
legate 


fee 
ole Do 
reco 
—— 















































are ae 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES II 


first two, which were used for illustrative and demonstration 
purposes) ; 

b. Series Completion test (fifteen parts) ; 

c. Form test (twelve parts). 

The second part included: 

d. Opposites test (fourteen parts) ; 

e. Right Answers test (sixteen parts) ; 

f. Analogies test (fourteen parts). 

These were bound in such a way that the two pages containing 
each test faced each other, making it unnecessary to turn a page 
during a test. The instructions for the various tests are given in 
the Appendix (II). 

The time allowance was determined by asking the pupils to 
raise their hands when they had finished, and stopping the test 
when the first two or three had raised their hands. Since the com- 
putations of correlation with teachers’ estimates were necessarily 
based on single rooms as units, and since it seemed desirable to 
ascertain what the younger pupils could do had they a longer time, 
the time allowance was not kept uniform throughout the prelimi- 
nary test, but was increased somewhat in the lower grades. On the 
Right Answers test the time was kept uniform, varying from five to 
fifteen seconds for each part; on the others, the time varied from 
one minute to two and a half minutes on the various tests. In one 
3A grade room the time allowance (which was made the same as 
in the 3B room where the test was first given) proved somewhat 
too long, so that about one-third of the pupils were able to finish 
each test before time was called. The result was that the slower 
pupils had an opportunity to work on through the test after the 
quicker children had finished, thus decreasing the average devia- 
tion of the scores in this room as compared with that in the other 
rooms, and partially obscuring real differences in ability. 

The instructions for giving the test which had been perfected 
during the first tryout were worded to suit the new (group) con- 
ditions under which the test was to be given. 

This preliminary form was then given as a group test in six 
rooms of the University Elementary School (hereinafter designated 
as “School U”’) and five rooms in the suburban town of Hinsdale 


12 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


(designated “H’’). In the former school the two parts were given 
with an interval of about three weeks between parts; in the latter, 
both parts were given on the same day, with an interval of about 
an hour and a half. About 250 children in all were given the test, 
but it proved necessary to discard some of the papers of pupils 
who were present for only one part of the test and whose records 
were therefore incomplete. Two hundred and thirty-four sets were 
obtained and used in computing the correlations. In seven of the 
eleven rooms the Stanford-Binet test had been given about three 
months earlier ; in nine rooms the teachers’ estimates of the pupils’ 
intelligence were available. The schools, grades, number of pupils, 
and criteria available in each room are shown in Table I. 


TABLE I 


Schools in Which Preliminary Group Test Was Given, and Criteria Used in 
Computing Correlation-Coefficients 


NO. OF MENTAL TEACHERS TEACHERS’ 
SCHOOL GRADE PUPILS AGE ESTIMATES ESTS.,REVISED 
U Kindergarten 18 A * * 
IA 10 *: * 
TA, 2B 12 2 be * 
2A ae 1s a 5 
3B 13 * * * 
3A 21 * * * 
H South, I 44 x 
North, 1 14 2s 
Se ¥2 34 7 
Nee 14 “ 
353 32 
234 


The attitude of the pupils was throughout interested and active; 
the shortness of the time (about twenty minutes for each part) pre- 
cluded fatigue or general loss of interest. 

As the papers were scored, a full record was kept on each paper 
of both right and wrong responses and of parts omitted. In cases 
where two responses were required and only one was made, it was 
counted omitted; where two (or more) responses were made, one 
right and the other wrong, it was scored wrong. The detailed 
record of each child was tabulated on large co-ordinately-ruled 
sheets, one sheet to a room, to facilitate computation. 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 13 


ARRANGING THE SCALE AND DETERMINING ITs VALIDITY 


A variety of computations proved to be necessary in connec- 
tion with the arrangement of the final form of the scale. Among 
the questions that had arisen in the course of the study were the 
following: 

1. Should all parts of the Right Answers test be retained ? 

2. Should allowance be made, in scoring the Opposites and 
Form tests, for the right responses which would be made by chance 
alone? 

3. Willa part of the tests (e.g., three or four) show as signifi- 
cant results as all six taken together? 

4. Which combination of tests is most significant ? 

5. Should the Right Answers test (or any other) be weighted? 

6. In each test, what is the relative difficulty of the different 
parts? 

- 7. Do these results correlate most closely with the mental ages 
(Stanford-Binet test), or with teachers’ estimates? Why? 

8. Do the various tests measure the same ability exercised in 
slightly different forms, or different abilities, or partly the same 
and partly different? 

These questions, of course, can be answered only through sta- 
tistical studies of the results, and most of them evidently call for 
computations of coefficients of correlation. Of the various methods 
of computing correlation, the so-called “Rank Method” of Spear- 


man (using the formula, p = 1 — 6(Sum_ D?’) 
N (N’—1) 


the difference between the rank of any individual in one series 
and his rank in the other, and N is the total number of individuals ) 
was used in most cases, primarily because the teachers’ estimates 
were usually arranged in ranked order, thus necessitating this 
method of computation. Furthermore, since the coefficients were 
used primarily for comparison among one another, and not in 
comparison with coefficients taken from some other investigation 
which might have been obtained by some other formula, the method 
which was necessary for some of the computations was used for 


, where D is 


14 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


others as well. It may be remarked, however, that coefficients com- 
puted by this method vary less than .o2 from those computed by 
the “product- moment” method. Where several rooms are included, 
as is usually the case, the coefficient given is the average (weight- 
ed by size of room) of coefficients for the various rooms, and the 
Probable Error is given. 

We take up the questions suggested above in their order. 


1. It became apparent before scoring had gone far that some of 
the Right Answers tests were so easy as to be worthless. Two such. 
tests were eliminated before the scoring was finished, one because 
it was practically impossible to find cases which could be scored 
as absolutely right or absolutely wrong; the other, because its 
form suggested the proper response too readily. In order to de- 
termine what other parts should be eliminated, the 180 papers 
which had at that time been obtained were examined, and the right 
and wrong responses on each part tabulated (see Table 2). The 
number of errors made on each part of the test by the best quarter 
of each class, the second quarter, the third quarter, and the poor-- 
est quarter (or, in smaller classes, by the better half and the poorer 
half of the class) was then compared. Those parts of the test which 
revealed very few errors, or which did not show a fairly consistent 
decrease of errors from the bottom of the class to the top, were 
eliminated. In this way, five more tests were eliminated, leaving 
nine of the original sixteen parts. 


TABLE II 


Number of Right Responses Made on Each Part of the Richt Answers Test 
(Preliminary Group Form) by Better Halves and Poorer Halves 
of Seven Groups (180 Pupils) 


TEST 7-NUMBER RIGHT RESPONSES) —- PERCENT 
NO. DESCRIPTION BETTER HALF POORERHALF DIFFERENCE 
(Tests Retained ) 
2 Hats and ‘Caps ik 58 - 10 
3. Plaything 04 53 .09 
4 Circles 65 50 “13 
5 Dots in Row 37 31 09 
6 Arrow 35 24 19 
7 Table, Ball, Blocks 78 66 .08 
8 Four Paths 74 58 12 
9 Buildings 5I 45 .06 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 15 


(Tests Not Retained; 
these are described, but not illustrated, in Appendix I) 


10 Ball and Field 44 28 22 
11 Tools 82 75 04 
12 Toys 77 85 —.05 
13. Animals to Eat 74 71 02 
14 Rectangle Not Scored 

15 Heavy and Light Objects Not Scored 

16 Animals 90 87 02 
17. Tools to'Cut 81 77 03 


The retained tests correlated fairly consistently with the criteria 
of intelligence. One test which did show good correlation was elim- 
inated, Terman’s ‘Ball and Field” test (with a time allowance of 
fifteen seconds), which had been included in the group test for 
purposes of trial. This was eliminated for several reasons: (1) 
Some pupils were already familiar with it; (2) it was the only 
borrowed test in the lot; (3) it is more difficult to score satisfac- 
torily than any of the others. The Right Answers test was there- 
fore reduced to eight parts (in addition to the one used for demon- 
stration) which it contains in the final form, illustrated in Plate 
I, and it is this final form which was used in computing the various 
coefficients of correlation. 

2. In two tests, the Opposites and Form tests, there is a proba- 
bility that a certain number will be marked right if the child simply 
marks at random or in some stereotyped form, and makes no men- 
tal effort whatever. There is also such a chance in the Associated 
Objects test, but since the requirement calls sometimes for one 
and sometimes for two pictures to be marked, the probability is 
very small that more than one or two will be correctly marked by 
mere chance. This sort of situation is usually met by subtracting a 
fraction of the errors from the rights in scoring, the fraction being 
such that a purely random response to the series of tests will result 
in a zero score. In the Form test the chance is one in four that any 
given part will be marked right, or a probability that if all twelve 
are marked, three will be right. This would be corrected by deduct- 
ing one-third of the errors from the rights. Table 3 indicates that 
to make such correction raises the average coefficient of correla- 
tion with the mental age very slightly. The same is true with the 


16 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


correlation with teachers’ estimates. In at least two rooms such de- 
duction has the effect of lowering instead of raising the correla- 
tion, probably because, as inspection of the papers shows, the less 
intelligent children tend to make fewer total responses in this 
test than do the brighter children, and thus to make a total of 
fewer errors (or at any rate, not many more) than the latter. But 
against this slight superiority of corrected scoring is to be weighed 
the considerable practical disadvantage of dealing with fractional ~ 
scores (one-thirds and two-thirds), which retards and increases 
the probability of arithmetical error and inconvenience in scoring, 
listing, and computing, especially where large numbers of papers 
have to be handled rapidly. Hence, such a deduction has, in this 
study, been omitted. | 

In the Opposites test the probability of chance success is some- 
what greater, one in three. The score would, therefore, be. cor- 
rected by subtracting one-half the errors from the rights; then, if 
a child marks nine of the parts in a purely stereotyped or random 
way, he will probably mark three right and six wrong, which, by 
the formula, would give him a zero score. Although computations 
in several rooms show that the gain from such correction is not 
much greater than that in the Form test, the inconvenience of frac- 
tional scores can be avoided by the expedient of doubling the scores 
throughout the test, and this plan of scoring has therefore been 
adopted. 

3. Computations showed that the sum of the scores of six tests 
gave, on the average, no higher correlations with the criteria of 
intelligence than do several combinations of four tests, in spite of 
the fact that the group is more significant than any single test. 
These coefficients are summarized in Table 3. Even if they had 
shown a higher correlation, it would have to be materially higher 
to compensate for the greater practical advantage of the smaller 
number, which is as many as can be given in the length of time it 
seems desirable to use for primary children, i.e., from twenty to 
twenty-five minutes. But an inspection of the table of coefficients 
for the various combinations shows no such superiority. The 
significance of this fact will be discussed later, as we are at this 
point concerned primarily with the procedure followed. 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 17 


Taste IIT 
Coefficients of Correlation (Rank Method) for Tests and Combinations 


(AppreviaTions Usep: AO = Associated Objects test; SC = Series Comple- 
tion; F = Form; Op = Opposites ; RA = Right Answers ; An = Analogies ; 
w.dbl. = weighted double; R—1/2E = Number of Rights minus half the 
number of Errors.) 


WITH WITH WITH REVISED 
TEST OR COMBINATION MENTAL AGE TCHRS’. EST. ESTIMATES 
ROME, Daa nose Ede ae Whos. PAbr. 
Associated Objects ‘55 06 
Series Completion 58 06 
Forms (Rights) .50 06 
Form (R—1/3E) .52 .060 
Opposites ( Rights) 55 .06 
Opposites (R—1/2E) 58 .06 
Right Answers (8 parts) 52 07 
Analogies 38 .08 
Sum of six tests 63 04 42 04 
Sum of six tests (RA w.dbl.) 64 04 .40 .05 
SC + Op + RA + An 69 .03 .45 04 
SC + Op + RA(w.dbl.) + An 69 .03 .4O 05 
SC + F 4+ Op + RA 69 .03 .4I 05 
aa for School U, 5 rooms 43 .06 53 .06 
O+ SC + Op + An .68 .05 
Rar Op + RA + An .67 05 
O-+ SC + Op + RA(w.dbl.) .67 .O4 
F + Op + RA + An 66 05 
C+ F 4+ Op + An .66 05 
O+ SC + F + Op 65 05 
O+SC + F 4+RA 65 05 
O+ SC + RA + An 64 05 
AO TF + Op + An .63 05 
O+F + Op + RA 63 04 
C+F + RA4 An 63 04 .4I 09 
O+F + RA 4+ An 63 05 
O+ SC + F + An 63 05 
C+ F ++ Op .66 04 
C+F + Op + RA (for same 
rooms as preceding group) GA 04. 


4. Several of the fifteen possible combinations of four tests 
seem to have about equal value. In fact, the coefficients for any of 
the fifteen combinations indicate considerable value. Two com- 
binations, however, stand out somewhat above the others, each 
showing an average correlation coefficient of .69 (+.03), the “r”’ 
equivalent being about .70 or .71. These two combinations which 


18 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


show the highest correlation with the other criteria of intelligence 
are: 


Right Answers test Right Answers test 
Opposites test Opposites test 

Series Completion test Series Completion test 
Form test Analogies test. 


Several other combinations of four seem to be almost equally 
worthy of consideration. The two combinations described, how- 
ever, yield almost identical correlation coefficients throughout the 
rooms, with both teachers’ estimates and mental ages. Practical 
considerations finally led to the choice of the group including the 
Form test, as being easier for untrained examiners to administer 
than the Analogies test. It is rather surprising to notice that two 
tests which individually show rather marked difference in their 
degree of correlation with intelligence criteria should, in com- 
bination, yield such similar results, illustrating rather strikingly 
the value of a combination of tests in order that they may supple- 
ment one another. The two tests seem to measure a number of 
identical elementary processes, form perception, comparison, etc., 
although there are undoubtedly marked differences in other pro- 
cesses which they measure. The final form of the scale, therefore, 
was made up of the first combination of four named above. 
Another fact, familiar to the statistician, but too often over- 
looked by the layman, has a bearing on the significance of these 
coefficients, viz: the heterogeneity or homogeneity of the data 
from which they were computed. Not infrequently do we find cited 
coefficients of correlation between test results and various criteria 
of validity ranging from + .75 to + .85 or even higher; but on 
examination we often find that the cases cover a wide range of ages 
or grades, the effect of this heterogeneity of data being, of course, 
to magnify whatever correlation there may be and-to raise the co- 
efficient. The coefficients here cited, on the other hand, are aver- 
ages of coefficients computed separately for highly homogeneous 
groups, i. e., single grades or rooms. Had data from the three or 
four grades been assembled and a single coefficient computed for 
this relatively wide range of ability (which was not possible, ow- 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 19 


ing to the varying time allowances in the experimental testing) it 
would undoubtedly have been materially higher. 

5. The question of weighting the tests then arose, particularly 
with reference to the Right Answers test, which includes only eight 
parts, as compared with the twelve or fourteen parts in each of the 
others. In a number of rooms computations were made, both with- 
out weighting the test, and with the score on this test doubled. The 
comparative results summarized in Table III showed that, while 
the significance of the Right Answers test varied from room to 
room within a limited range, in the long run weighting the test 
made no significant difference, one way or the other. The question 
was therefore settled on purely practical grounds, in a way which 
will be described later, but which, in effect, amounted to a weight- 
ing of one and one-half. 

6. The question of relative difficulty of parts within each test 
was settled by taking about 100 papers and counting the rights 
and errors on each part. The object of this was to arrange the final 
scale with the easier parts at the beginning of each test and the 
harder parts at the end of each test. One reason for such arrange- 
ment is that the pupil may have the encouragement to continue his 
efforts which comes from attacking the more easily solved prob- 
lems first. Such an arrangement, moreover, makes the final score 
not merely an index of his speed, but a test of his ability to solve 
problems of constantly increasing difficulty; so that the child who 
makes a high score is not only a more rapid thinker and worker, 
but has greater insight and better judgment. The result of this in- 
vestigation 1s, so far as the four tests of the final scale are con- 
cerned, revealed in the order of the parts within each test as shown 
in Plates I to IV. The order of difficulty in the other two tests 
(Plates V and VI) is not so accurately measured. 

7. An inspection of the coefficients in Table 3 shows that the 
tests correlate considerably more highly with the Stanford-Binet 
mental ages than with the teachers’ estimates. The test scores on 
the combination of tests chosen for the final scale showed correla- 
tion coefficients with mental ages ranging from .51 to .87, and 
averaging (average weighted by number of pupils in room) .69-++, 
which is the equivalent of r == .71 by the product-moment method 


20 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


of computation. With the teachers’ estimates, on the other hand, 
the coefficients ranged from +.01 to .74, averaging .41. This 
average was materially reduced, of course, by the estimates for 
the room which showed the lowest correlation. It proved impos- 
sible to check up the teacher’s estimates with the mental ages in 
this room, since for some unknown reason only a few of the Binet 
records for this group could be found. That some very different 
criterion was used in making these estimates seems evident, how- 
ever, from the few Binet figures which were available for children 
of this group; thus, one child, listed eighth in the group of ten, but 
highest in the group test, showed an intelligence quotient of 142. 
Eliminating this room, the average coefficient of correlation be- 
tween the group test and the teachers’ estimates is .43. The revised 
estimate, described later, showed a markedly higher agreement, 
both for this room and for the entire school. In a later section the 
significance of the difference between correlation-coefficients com- 
puted with the mental age and with the teachers’ estimates will be 
discussed at greater length. 

8. The make-up of the final form of the scale has already been 
indicated. The mechanical arrangement proved something of a 
problem, due to the form limitations which the nature of three of 
the four tests imposed. It was finally met as shown in Plates I to 
IV. . 

The scoring system adopted was based on 100 as a perfect score, 
which is made up as follows: 


Right Answers test, 8 parts, rights & 3, perfect score =e, 
Opposites test, 14 parts, (rights—'%wrongs) X 2, perfect score = 28 
Series Completion test, 12 parts, rights & 2, perfect score eet ei 
Form test, 12 parts, rights X 2, perfect score == ECA 

Total == 100 


The scoring could, of course, have been arranged on a scale of 
50 instead of 100, by not weighting the last three tests, and weight- 
ing the Right Answers test by 114, as described earlier; but the 
present plan was adopted to attain the purely practical end of 
avoiding fractional scores, which would otherwise appear in the 
Right Answers and Opposites tests. 

Following the determination of the final make-up of the scale, 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 21 


drawings were prepared, electrotypes made, and 1500 test blanks, 
of the form shown in the insert (Plates I to IV), were printed. In 
this form the scale was used during the month of May, 1920, in 
testing over 1300 pupils in the schools listed on pages 22 and 23, 
for the purpose of obtaining norms. 

In the first thirty rooms listed, the testing was done by the 
author personally (except for about fifteen pupils in System E, 
who were tested a few days later by an experienced primary 
teacher). In the other schools it was done by superintendent or 
teachers. Blanks were sent to these schools with the definite object 
of ascertaining whether the results obtained by other examiners 
were comparable with those obtained by the author, and thus to 
secure a check on the practical reliability of the scale and its ac- 
companying instructions. In most of these cases, a careful exam- 
ination of the test papers seemed to prove that the test had been 
given with as much care as by the author, and the results were fully 
_comparable. In two first grade rooms (System O) the time allow- 
ance had evidently been made much too long to permit the scores 
to be compared with those from other schools. Returns from these 
rooms have not, therefore, been included in the summary of scores. 
In two other rooms (System N) there was some evidence that the 
directions on one or another of the Right Answers tests had not 
been accurately given, so that an indeterminate portion of the pu- 
pils in those two rooms scored three points lower than they should. 
In spite of this fact it was deemed best not to throw out these two 
sets of papers, since their influence on the norms is small. The in- 
structions therefore seem to be adequate for anyone who exercises 
reasonable care in following them. The paragraph (see Appendix 
Il) emphasizing care in observing the time factor was inserted 
after the scores herein described had been obtained, with a view 
to preventing a recurrence of the oversight described above. 

It was found by the author that to give the test required from 
about twenty minutes (in third grade rooms) to twenty-five min- 
utes or more (in first grade rooms), the variation being due solely 
to the amount of time required for “preliminaries,” inserting 
name, age, grade, etc. After this had been done, the actual time for 
work on the testing was uniformly about eighteen minutes. 


22 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


It was the original intention to give the test in only the first three 
grades. At one superintendent’s request, however, the author con- 
sented to give it in one higher room, characterized as “slow,” and 
including fourth and fifth grade pupils. The results were so direct- 
ly comparable with those of other grades that other fourth grade 
rooms were tested, partly in order to get fourth grade norms, and 
partly to get scores from those nine-year-old children who are 
above the third grade. No kindergarten children were included in 


this final series of tests, hence no kindergarten norms, and noage 


norms below six years have been established, although the. ex- 
perience with the preliminary group form on which the correla- 
tions were computed proved that the test is adapted to many kin- 
dergarten children. 


DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES 


The scoring was found to be an easy task. After practice the 
author found it possible to score as many as eighty papers per hour. 
Instructions for scoring are given in Appendix III. The scores for 
each pupil, together with age, sex, and grade, were listed in ranked 
order, and sent to the teachers with the request that they make 
corrections and return to the author. 

The distribution of scores made on the final form of the scale 
is shown in Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7, in graphic form in Figures 1 to 5s. 
The schools and communities represented may be characterized as 
follows: 

1. Evanston, Il., South Side Schools, District No. 76 (herein- 
after designated as “System E”), 22 rooms. A residential and 
university suburb, selected partly because it represents a consider- 
able range of social strata, and is therefore fairly representative 
of an American middle-class community. 

Four schools are included, as follows: 

School A. Five rooms. In western part of suburb; middle-class 
neighborhood, with many laborers’ homes. In first grade, thirty- 
five per cent of the children bear Polish names; in lesser degree this 


is characteristic of other grades. Some other European nationali- + 


ties are represented, although American ancestry predominates. 


ee eT Te eee an re 








INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 23 


School B. Five rooms. Somewhat better neighborhood than the 
former; fewer foreign names, but largely laborers’ homes. 

School C. Six rooms. Moderately well-to-do neighborhood; 
many business and professional men. 

School D. Six rooms. In best part of the town; many wealthy 
and cultured families represented. 

Scores by age-groups are given for the system as a whole in 
Tables IV and V; grade-scores are shown in Table 6 for the sep- 
arate schools as well as for the entire system. 

2. Jackson School, Chicago. Designated as “School J.” Eight 
rooms. In the heart of the Italian district, three blocks from Hull 
House. Ninety-eight per cent of the children are of Italian par- 
entage. Age and grade scores given. 

3. New Hampton, Iowa. Designated as “System N.”’ Four 
rooms. County-seat town of 2500 population; agricultural com- 
munity. Age and grade scores given. 

4. Lincoln School of Teachers’ College, New York. Designated 
as “School L.”’ Three rooms. An experimental school in a wealthy 
neighborhood; distinctly a selected group. Ages were not obtain- 
able here, so only grade-scores (grades I, 2, and 3) are given. 

5. Osage, lowa. Designated as System O.” Four rooms. Coun- 
ty-seat town of 3000 population; agricultural community; much 
like System N, but probably somewhat higher cultural level. Scores 
for two first-grade rooms had to be discarded, as explained earlier, 
and no fourth grade tested; hence, age-scores for remaining (sec- 
ond and third) grades are not summarized, since they would not 
be fully representative. 

TABLE IV 
Distribution of Scores by Ages and Sexes (Grades f to 4) 


AGE NOM BE ———— CORD Sr 


SCHOOL SEX LAST OF FIRST THIRD 

BIRTHDAY CASES HIGH QUARTILE MEDIAN QUARTILE LOW 

1B Boys 6 years 7 65 34 22 10 fo) 

fee 74 71 45 38 25 Oo 

oa.° 88 93 64 48 34 7 

i a 64 87 69 59 41 9 

gb | oe 34 86 75 59 43 14 

ae goa 26 81 75 58 30 3I 

Sie 7 78 ca oH) - 14 


24 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


1D Girls 6 years 60 54 31 23 15 fo) 
Paid 69 74 46 37 20 oO 
hae 71 78 60 48 28 4 
fS 54 89 65 5I 39 14 
Mae, gl ii. 29 8I 69 52 40 27 
or! hak Aa 7 79 a 63 46 
12+ “ 6 50 30 20 
296 
i? Boys 6 years 30 2a 9 6 I O 
Aaa 24 63 PP 17 I (o) 
Sits. ete) 26 19 10 3 
gure 30 68 34 26 19 9 
RIO 2 ae 24 66 39 34 19 12 
ong Pee II 68 44 31 20 13 
zi 9 60 os 30 21 
165 
J: Girls 6 years 36 33 7 4 2 oO 
ithe 29 67 17 II 5 fe) 
ee We 36 46 27 14 7 fe) 
- 25 46 35 21 14 2 
of (0 on 22 42 33 22 15 6 
oh ee 6 50 ie. 33 23 
ap es ee 5 74 ie 30 22 
159 


* In this and later tables it should be borne in mind that the scores given for 
ages 10 and over are not representative of those age-groups, and are not reliable 
as norms, since they include few or no pupils above grade 4. Those whose 
scores are shown here are, therefore, to a considerable extent over-age and re- 
tarded children; hence their scores average lower than the normal score would 
be for those ages. 


TABLE V 


Distribution of Scores by Ages (Both Sexes) Grades I to 4 


AGE NM ae 
SCHOOL LAST OF FIRST THIRD 
BIRTHDAY CASES HIGH QUARTILE MEDIAN QUARTILE LOW 


1D 6 years © 131 65 33 22 12 (a) 
acts 143 74 45 37 23 ° 
8 1590 93 62 48 33 4 
Cre. 118 89 67 56 41 9 
Ze Ouuenre 63 86 70 55 AI 14 
yt eae oly 33 81 73 59 42 31 
*r 13 78 aM 50 ae 14 v 


—_— 


660 





INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 25 


le 6 years 66 a3 9 5 2 fe) 
Ve a 53 67 19 13 6 fo) 
Siete 7B 69 26 16 9 fo) 
¥ 55 68 35 25 17 2 
*TOm ie 46 66 36 29 18 6 
ree ak 17 68 44 31 26 6 
6 14 74 37 21 

324 
N. 5 years 9 4I 23 12 Fi 5 
Oey 16 47 32 24 13 7 
res ae 32 75 47 34 14 5 
Sree 21 65 50 30 30 22 
Oral 19 77 65 49 34 12 
TO mag 8 76 62 45 31 25 
TT ay 4 46 ae 30 II 

*120- I a 53 
IIo 
TABLE VI 


Distribution of Scores by Grades, Both Sexes 


NG MEER a SCOR 


SCHOOL AND GRADE OF FIRST THIRD 
CASES HIGH QUARTILE MEDIAN QUARTILE LOW 
Tstk, choo! VA 49 50 27 15 5 oO 
My B 23 62 30 17 UL 3 
oan. ©. 54 57 30 24 15 3 
* D 48 65 33 25 14 fo) 
21d Lee SCHOO ll eA 20 68 37 28 25 7 
My B 22 50 43 28 18 9 
Co aee 37 77 51 AI 32 18 
D 75 69 49 42 2 15 
Brcem ls, School A 29 73 60 47 38 23 
= B 28 74 60 45 32 21 
4 c 52 85 64 55 40 20 
ee 59 93 67 56 48 27 
Ath, E, School A 40 80 66 51 a7 14 
oS 37 87 73 56 48 27 
ae Os 32 7 66 60 55 31 
(4B and 4C only) D 2 89 76 68 54 21 
Cthet. easchool A 13 80 76 61 44 35 
(5B and 5C only) B 18 8I 77 68 52 35 
System E, Girt 174 65 30 21 II fe) 
2 163 77 47 35 26 7 
(Four 3 168 93 64. 52 40 20 
Schools) 4 131 890 71 50 48 14 
*(5) Cate SOY O72 C05 eats ree (35) 
667 


* These scores not representative of entire 5th grade or of 
entire city, hence not reliable as norms. 


26 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


System N, I 28 51 26 16 9 5 
2 32 75 42 33 24 
3 34 68 56 46 32 12 
4 16 77 68 54 40 18 
110 
School J, I gI 36 9 4 2 fo) 
2 69 35 19 12 6 Oo 
3 107 68 32 22 14 3 
4 76 74 39 32 22 4 
343 
School L, I 16 62 47 38 28 15 
Ze 17 74 68 61 50 35 
3 18 92 79 75 62: 42 
eT 
System O, 2 33 78 59 tS ee aC =ORs 
3 37 85 64 53 38 22 
70 
Tasie VII 


Decile Distribution of Scores by Ages (E, four schools, 660 pupils) — 


6y’Rs 7yYRS 8yRS QYRS IOY’RS II YRS 12+yY'RS 
(131) (143) (159) ~— (118) (63) (33) (13) 


Highest Score 65 74 93 89 86 (81) | (78) 
First Decile Ueeas 53 71 75 80 

Second “ 36 47 65 70 75 
Third 4 30 44 60 65 67 sae 
Bounties 27 42 ae 60 63 

Fifth (MEDIAN)  22,—'=s—s«gs'i(‘itiasti(ité«CGSC‘«‘“SC}:SC#(SQ*)”~S«( 50) 
Sixth Decile 18 31 AI 50 51 

Seventh “ Tests 25 35 42 43 

Eighth “ 8 19 27 35 39 bn 2” 
Ninth es 5 12 21 24 32 : 
Lowest Score oO ° 4 9 I4 (31) (14) 





INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 27 


FiG.1 (Table 6), Distribution of Scores FIG.2 (Table 6). Median Soores 
by Grades, (System E, 4 Buildings ¥ ° 
636 Pupils) x : by Grades, Five Communities, 
Score 
Score 
100 
Systen 
90 
80 
70 L 
Median,Sch,p (1) 
Median, Sch,g 60 E 
Median, Systean 
Median, Soh.B 50 u 
Median, Sch,a 
40 
30 v 
20 
my eral 
0 
Grade 1 2 3 & 





FIG.3 (Tables 4,5), Median Soores 
by Age and Sex, ) 
Systen E, 660 Pupils 
FIG.4, Median Scores by Age and Grade fs 
rabee S¥ stone: ’ chool J, 324 Pupils) 








Grade Curve --------- Age curve 
60 
50 
Systenu 40 
E 
30 
20 
10 
0 
60 1: a 2 a) OF. 12 
Systen 50 
N FIG,5 (Table 7), Decile Distribution, 
40 of Scores by Ages (System E), 
30 
20 
mg 
0 
Sohool 
J 
Grade 





28 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


ANALYSIS OF SCORE DISTRIBUTIONS 

An examination of the tables and graphs in which the results of 
the tests are summarized reveals a number of interesting facts. 

The curve which traces the median (or either quartile) score 
from grade to grade, or from year to year, is normally a straight 
line. That is to say, the child makes substantially equal progress 
in ability each year during the three year-intervals represented. 
This is true, regardless of the absolute score, being characteristic 


of the median and quartile curves in schools of widely varying ~ 


status. Two qualifications are important in this connection, 
although neither affects the validity of the conclusion stated. 

First, there is apparent in some of the better fourth grades, 
notably E and N (and it would probably be equally manifest in 
O and L, had we fourth grade data for these schools), the slowing- 
down effect due to the approach to the maximum possible score, 
100. This effect is particularly noticeable in the first quartile of the 
system E distribution. This indicates that, while 100 is theoret- 
ically possible of attainment, and probably would be attained by 
some were the test given in higher grades, the difficulty of the 
hardest tests prevents most scores from going above 90. Only two 
of the 1242 papers here summarized have reached that mark. That 
this is due to the nature of the scale, and not to this particular stage 
of growth, seems apparent from the absence of this bend in the 
curve of the J school, whose scores stand well below the influence 
of these hardest tests. 

It should be remembered in this connection that the scale was 
designed for the first three grades, and that its use in the fourth 
grade was in the nature of an afterthought. In the first three grades 
the influence of this approach to the maximum is not observable 
save in the upper part of the first quartile. It is of interest to find 
‘hat the scale lends itself so readily to use in the fourth grade, 
thereby making possible comparative studies with scales designed 
for intermediate and upper grades and involving the use of read- 
ing material. 

A second qualifying comment refers to the age distributions. It 


will be observed that median scores for ten, eleven, and twelve . 


(and over) year old children not only do not ordinarily rise much 


— — 


ie ee 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 29 


above the nine-year median, but frequently are lower. This is due, 
of course, to the fact that (with a very few exceptions in two E 
rooms which included some fifth grade children) the only pupils of 
these ages who were tested were in the fourth grade or below, 
hence over-age and presumably averaging below normal intelli- 
gence. The median and quartile scores for these years are not, 
therefore, valid as age-norms, and have therefore been distinctive- 
ly marked in several tables, with parenthesis or asterisk. 

That the form of distribution of these scores resembles the 
normal probability curve is apparent both from the quartile distri- 
bution of Tables IV, V, and VI (Fig. 1) and the decile distribution 
of Table VII (Fig. 5). The middle half of the scores have, on the 
average, a smaller range than either the upper or lower quartiles, 
indicating the ““bunching”’ of scores around the median, and their 
“scatter”? at the upper and lower extremes. This was observed to 
be characteristic, in less degree, of the score sheets for the various 
rooms, and is, indirectly, a confirmation of the reliability of the 
scale as a measuring instrument. 

Table IV (Fig. 3) shows the sex differences in the E system 
and the J school. In the former, they are so small as to be neg- 
ligible, the only deviation (ages 9 and 10) being partly accounted 
for by the limited number of cases which, scattered over a consid- 
erable range of scores, may displace the median. The use of the 
average instead of the median reduces the difference at age 9 by 
two points. In the J school, however, there is a constant sex differ- 
ence, the boys scoring about five points higher than the girls a 
each age. The cause of this difference has not yet been determined ; 
possibly a more aggressive adaptability to strange social customs 
may have led the boys in this Italian neighborhood to do better 
than the girls; but this is purely a speculative suggestion. 

The most striking differences revealed are those between median 
and other representative scores in different schools (Table IV). 
Between the four E schools there are marked differences, corre- 
sponding definitely to the differences in social status of each neigh- 
borhood described on pages 22-23. The two small-town systems 
do not vary far from the E norm; the lower standing of N is partly 
due to the slight error, described earlier, in giving the test, which 


30 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


makes several of the scores three points lower than they should be; 
the advantage is, however, with the town (O) which prides itself 
on its school system and cultural atmosphere. The L school and 
the J school deviate widely from the E norm. In each case the 
direction and relative amount of deviation is just what our knowl- 
edge of the two communities would lead us to expect, in the light 
of the many studies that have been reported on the relation between 
intelligence and social status. The scores seem to warrant the selec- 
tion of E as a fairly representative American community, as well 
as the characterization of the L school as a highly selected group, 
and the J school as representative of a community distinctly below 
the standard. We have no data to warrant entering into a discus- 
sion of the cause of these variations, whether they be racial, en- 
vironmental, or physiological (nutritive, sensory, etc.). It is pos- 
sible that significant supplementary data may be available from 
these schools at some future time to aid in such analysis. 

It is of interest to note the relation between the age scores and 
grade scores in the three schools from which we have age data, 
E,J, and N. This has been put in graphic form in Fig. 4. In each 
case, the 6-year age median is slightly above the first grade median, 
and the 7-year age median above the second grade median; while 
the 8-year age median invariably falls below the third grade me- 
dian, remaining below in the ninth year and fourth grade. The 
same type of phenomenon is in general characteristic of the first 
and third quartiles in all three schools, except that the age quartile 
ordinarily falls below the grade quartile a year earlier (1.e., 7 years, 
second grade) ; the first quartile, system N, offers the single excep- 
tion. That this phenomenon should occur uniformly in three so 
widely different systems, totaling over a thousand pupils, indicates 
that it is not a chance occurrence, but a definite demonstration, by 
the group scale, of certain normal conditions. These conditions 
may be crudely summarized as follows: 


The average six-year old is brighter than the average first-grader 

“« seven-year old “ * second-grader 
third-grader “ md iS husks # eight-year old 
fourth-grader nine-year old 


“ce “ec 


“ec “cr “ “ec “ce “ee “ 


The key to these differences is to be found in the complex make- 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 31 


up of each grade. A given grade contains a variety of elements,— 
bright, normal, and dull normal-age children, over-age children of 
normal or inferior intelligence, under-age children of normal or 
superior intelligence, and possibly even under-age dull children 
or over-age bright ones. The dullness and brightness, moreover, 
occur in widely varying degrees. The median score will conse- 
quently be a function of the relative weight of these diverse fac- 
tors. Table VIII presents an analysis of system E (668 pupils). 


Taste VIII 
Median Intelligence Scores of the Various Age-Grade Groups (System E) 


Grade I Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 
Median 21 Median 35 Median 52 Median 59 Median 65 


Age 
Age Median Med.No. Med.No. Med.No. Med.No. Med. No. 


6 22 ZT Lo Ale «13 40 I 

7 37 24 47 42 90 528 313 

8 48 II 6 sour AG Gros O3n Tg 1y 

9 56 FELG 2 Sattar 5I 42 60 57 7 2 
10 (55) pe CE yh} i ha ae Stee 55 40 O70 1% 
II (59) 36 6 60°) 16 COM ar 
12 20 I 29 4 61 
13 38 2 29 2 50 3 


If the progress of every pupil through the grades were uniform 
and regular, or if acceleration of superior pupils were as frequent 
as retardation of backward pupils, the age-median and grade- 
median would coincide. But as every teacher knows, and as this 
and every age-grade table reveals, acceleration is (largely because 
of the administrative difficulties it involves) much less frequent 
than retardation. Hence the middle and upper grades tend to be- 
come selected groups, including more bright children of normal 
age who have not been accelerated than dull children of normal 
age who have been left scattered through the lower grades. The 
grade-median will tend, therefore, to rise gradually above the age- 
median in successive grades. Let us consider the composition of a 
typical grade-group. 

An analysis of the fourth grade shows that it consists in the 
main of 9-year olds and 1o-year olds. The 9-year olds include 
bright, normal, and perhaps some dull pupils, but evidently fewer 
dull than bright, since there are so many dull 9-year olds in lower 
grades, and since the remainder average of superior 9-year old 


32 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


intelligence (60:56). The 10-year olds are, as a rule, normal or 
dull, but not sufficiently dull to bring the intelligence-median for 
the group (55) far below the grade-median (59), and hardly be- 
low the 9-year age-median (56). Besides these, we find eleven ac- 
celerated 8-year olds, whose presence raises the grade average. 
We find also sixteen 11-year olds, enough of whom are over-age 
for apparently other reasons than dullness to keep the intelligence- 
median up. Finally, we find a very few very dull, over-age pupils. 
The large majority of distinctly dull 9-year olds and older children, 


who would otherwise bring down the grade-median, are found 


scattered back through the third, second, and first grades with 
younger children whose average intelligence is not so far different 
from theirs. Thus, because of the preponderance of bright children 
over dull, the grade-median is kept above the corresponding age- 
median. 

In the first grade, however, and to a certain extent in the second, 
we find an important modifying factor. The first grade includes 
not only those normal-age pupils whose ability warrants their 
classification there, but all those dull normal-age and over-age 
children who average, as the table indicates, so much lower in intel- 
ligence that they would be found in a lower grade, were there any 
lower. The consequent accumulation of mediocre pupils, notably 
the 8-, 9-, and 10-year olds more than offsets the small group of 
non-accelerated bright pupils of normal age. This condition has 
not yet been completely overcome in the second grade, as the num- 
ber of retardates and their average intelligence shows. Hence the 


first two grade-medians fall slightly below the corresponding age- 


medians. 

The age-median curve and the grade-median curve, therefore, 
must cross at some point shortly after the second grade. By the 
time the third grade has been reached, retardation has produced 
the distinctly selective effect on the make-up of the grade which 
has been described. The fact that this normal, although rather fine- 
drawn over-balancing is reflected so definitely by the group-scale 
in three schools of so widely differing character, seems to be a 
verification of both its validity and reliability. 


a a 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 33 


NorMs 


Were we required to give definite age-standards for this scale, 
such standards would of necessity, at this stage, have to be tenta- 
tive, and based on some definite assumption concerning the “‘aver- 
age American community.” As a starting point the writer would, 
although with some hesitation, probably select an approximation to 
system E (for the reasons hereinbefore mentioned ) as a basis, and 
suggest as tentative median scores the following: 


Age 6 years (last birthday), median score 22 


“ec oe ce ce ve ce 

7 34 
ce 8 ce ce ce ce ec 46 
“ec e ee ce ee ce 

9 56 


The last named figure reflects the approach to the maximum, de- 
scribed earlier. 

For the various grades (keeping in mind that the scores were 
obtained in the last school month of the year, although in systems 
‘practicing term or mid-year promotion), the following may be 


suggested : ; 
Grade I, median score 21 


ce (a3 oe 
Bi 34 
ce ce e 


3: 47 

“cc 4, ce ‘ec 58 
These norms are, of course, merely tentative suggestions and 
will be revised or confirmed as added data accumulate.* The var- 


1 Additional records, comprising 1098 additional cases tested during the second 
half of the school year, have been collected by the Bureau of Educational Re- 
search since the publication of the scale. These, together with the results here- 
in presented (except those from School J which were not included for reasons 
previously mentioned), yield the following norms, representing about two 
thousand cases: 

Grade 1, Median Score 19 


“ “ “ 


2, 35 
“ 35 “ee “ce 48 
“ 4, “ “ec 50 


The net result of the addition of these later data is to lower three points the 
first-grade norm and raise those for the second, third, and fourth grades one 
point each. It is regrettable that absence of data concerning these schools does 
not permit further analysis of the educational and social character of these 
groups, nor presentation of revised age-norms, It should be remembered in us- 
ing these norms that tests made early in the school year may be expected to 
yield scores considerably lower. 


34 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


ious modifying factors that have been mentioned should, of course, 
be kept in mind in using the figures given. 


TEACHERS’ ESTIMATES 

It is apparent from an inspection of Table 3 that the results of 
this test correlate considerably more highly with the Binet-Stan- 
ford mental ages than with the teachers’ estimates of intelligence. 
With the Binet scores, the combination of tests used in the final 
scale gives an average coefficient of correlation (rho) of .69, while 
with the teachers’ estimates the average coefficient is about .41. 

This lower correlation means that the teachers, in making their 
estimates of the pupils’ intelligence, fail to take into sufficient ac- 
count certain factors which the two tests (Binet and group test) 
measure, or else that they take into account certain factors which 
neither of the tests measure. What some of these factors may pos- 
sibly be will occur at once to every reader. Such considerations as 
irregularity of attendance, physical or sensory defects, lack of in- 
terest in school work, some unfortunate attitude toward teacher or 
school, imperfect mastery of the language, laziness, etc, which af- 
fect unfavorably the quality of school work, may readily be im- 
agined as leading the teacher to underestimate the child’s real abil- 
ity, which a test score would probably not thus discount; while 
such factors as pronounced interest in work, high responsiveness 
to the teacher’s wishes (especially if the child’s intelligence be not 
low but moderate), special aptitude for reading or number work, 
perseverance, commendable social attitude, an intelligent facial ex- 
pression, or even neat personal appearance, might conceivably lead 
a teacher to overestimate the child’s native ability. These factors, 
of course, an intelligence test measures not at all, or to a very 
limited degree. 

On the other hand, it should be remembered that tests have, by 
their very nature, certain limitations as measures of intelligence. 
Temporary indisposition or disturbance may cause a child to do 
more poorly on a single test than his real ability warrants, while 
the reverse can seldom occur. Under the conditions of a group test, 
even more than in an individual test, such deviations are to be ex- 


pected, since the personal rapport between examiner and child , 


which will lead the child to do his best, can hardly be established ; 


i 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 35 


and a chance distraction may lower a child’s score disproportion- 
ately if it comes at a critical point and there is no opportunity for 
repetition of instructions. It should be borne in mind, however, 
that insofar as such cases have occurred, they have affected the 
correlation coefficients between the group scale and the Binet test 
scores, as well as between the test scores and the teachers’ esti- 
mates ; so that if one considers the former coefficients as reasonably 
high, it would indicate that the injustice worked on the pupils by 
the conditions of the group method cannot be excessive. Further- 
more, let us not forget that no one yet knows what tests or scales 
will measure intelligence accurately; and it would be dogmatism 
to assert that it is only the teachers’ estimate, and not the scale, 
which needs to be improved. The practical bearings of these limita- 
tions of the testing method are briefly discussed at a later point. 
Nevertheless, the non-intelligence factors previously mentioned 
are, it would seem, responsible at least in part for the lower corre- 
_lations of the test scores with teachers’ estimates than with mental 
age figures. In order to raise the coefficient of correlation with 
teachers’ estimates, such estimates should be guided. That is, it 
should be made clear to the teacher (as far as our limited informa- 
tion is possible) what is meant by “general intelligence’; she 
should be reminded what factors to take into account and what 
factors to neglect, and reminded that the child’s school marks, 
while significant, are not an accurate measure of his bare native 
ability. She should be asked, moreover, to make her estimates not 
in such vague, undefined terms as “good,” “fair,” etc., but in 
terms of some quantitatively defined scale. Several such scales have 
been suggested in educational literature, varying from a mere 
ranking of the pupils in order with reference to a certain list of - 
qualities (such as the one described later in connection with the 
re-estimates in School U) to elaborately worked out attempts to 
define the characteristics of ten or more graded intelligence groups. 
The scale used in rating army officers and various plans based 
thereupon,” wherein the estimator makes his own scale, placing five 


2 For example, that of Rugg, H. O., “Rating Scales for Pupils’ Dynamic Quali- 
ties; Standardizing Methods of Judging Human Character,” School Review, 
XXVIII: 337-340, May 1920. 


36 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


carefully chosen individuals at five numbered points (low extreme, 
low, average, superior, high extreme), and rates the members of 
the group numerically by comparison with these “standard” indi- 
viduals, has much to commend it. The writer used in certain cases 
a somewhat similar scale, with the following written instructions, 
sent to the teachers from whom estimates were to be obtained: 

“Please give your estimate of the pupils’ general intelligence, 
using the following numerical symbols: 

1. Exceptionally superior intelligence 
Above average 
Normal or average intelligence (for the group) 

Below average 

Distinctly deficient. . 

By ‘General Intelligence’ is meant not merely the pupil’s standing 
in school subjects, but his ability to direct and hold his attention 
to tasks, to adjust himself to new sorts of situations, and to -be 
critical of his own efforts; both in school situations and outside of 
school” (essentially Binet’s threefold conception of general intel- 
ligence ). 

Almost any definite plan for guiding teachers’ estimates of intel- 
ligence is better than no plan. Several lines of evidence arising in 
the present study have confirmed this belief. 

1. In several cases, teachers have given verbal comments» on 
individual pupils which indicate that their own recorded estimates 
of those pupils are based on other than ability factors. A single 
typical example will suffice. One girl, ranked in the “‘unsatisfac- 
tory” group by her teacher, was described to the writer by that 
teacher as “bright, but lazy’; her Binet intelligence quotient was 
108, and in the group test she stood fourth among thirty-two (per- 
centile rank 86.5). A number of similar instances occurred in 
other rooms. 

2. In one room (H, N. 2) the teacher had not made a list of 
estimates before the test was given. After it was given, but before 
the papers had been scored, the writer sent to the teacher a list of 
the pupils who had taken the test and asked that she rank them, 


Sad gas 


taking occasion to explain the meaning of ‘“‘General Intelligence,” 


in the terms quoted above. The resulting estimates from this group 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 37 


showed a higher correlation (.63) with the test scores than those 
of most other lists of estimates, and are comparable with the co- 
efficients obtained with the mental ages. 

3. The principal of school U, convinced that many of the origi- 
nal (unguided) lists of teachers’ estimates were based largely 
on considerations other than general intelligence, asked his teach- 
ers, some four months after the first estimates were made, to re- 
estimate their pupils, taking into account the following definite 
factors: Age Factor, Attitude toward school work, Quality of 
school work, Self-confidence of pupil, Timidity of pupil, Resource- 
fulness, Memory, Ability to work, Ability to discriminate or judge, 
Social qualities. The revised estimates made under the guidance 
of these instructions revealed in practically all cases a higher cor- 
relation, both with the mental ages and with the group test scores, 
than the earlier list of estimates. Thus, where the average correla- 
tion between the group test scores and the original estimates was 
.43, with the revised estimates it rose to .53. It is true, of course, 

‘that the teachers had access to both sets of test results when they 
made their revised estimates, and the objection might be offered 
that the revised estimates represented not the independent judg- 
ment of the pupils’ degree of possession of the traits specified, but 
an effort to approximate the test scores. A critical comparison of 
the various lists, and personal acquaintance with the teachers, how- 
ever, leads the writer to believe that there was no conscious attempt 
on the part of any teacher to make her estimates fit the scores, but 
that the revised estimates are just what they profess to be. 

4. Still another bit of evidence bearing on teachers’ estimates 
vas collected as a result of the request made that teachers go over 
the list of scores sent them, correct ages, grades, and names, and 
make comments on exceptional pupils, or pupils whose scores dif- 
fered materially from what the teacher judged their relative intel- 
ligence to merit. The teachers were asked to rate the pupils of this 
latter group on a number of qualities or conditions, including 
health, nutrition, freedom from physical defect, physical maturity, 
regularity of attendance, personal appearance, neatness, social 
status of home, deportment, initiative, originality, responsiveness 
to suggestion, industry, perseverance, interest in studies, reading 


38 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


and arithmetical ability, understanding of English language, etc., 
and also to estimate on a scale of I to 5 the child’s general intel- 
ligence, using the formula previously quoted. Only about a dozen 
of these have thus far been returned, and the information there 
given, while in general very illuminating, is not in such form as to 
permit tabulation. 

The number of pupils in each room whose ability the teacher 
considered to ‘“‘vary materially” from the score made varied from 
none or one or two, up to seven or eight, and averaged about four 
or five per room. In several cases the intelligence-estimate by the 
teacher proved to vary from the score by not more than one or two 
deciles. This may mean either that such a degree of variation was 
considered ‘“‘material,” or that the score fell below or above that of 
some other individual with whom the teacher was accustomed to 
compare the child in question, or that the effort at analysis had the 
effect of modifying the teacher’s original impression by the time 
she came to formulate an estimate of her own. Pupils who were 
estimated high by the teacher invariably were assigned high stand- 
ing in industry, perseverance, deportment, and other non-intellec- 
tual traits, while most or all of the children estimated low in ability 
were considered low in the volitional traits. This, of course, does 
not warrant our assuming that the teacher is misled in her esti- 
mates of intelligence; indeed, there is usually a considerable cor- 
relation between desirable volitional traits and intelligence; but it 
does reveal the presence, in these few cases of disagreement, of 
the possible explanatory causes hereinbefore mentioned. 

While the form of the estimates does not permit calculation of 
coefficients for these groups, the disparity certainly averages no 
higher, and in many cases much lower, than in the preliminary 
series, which showed a reasonable conformity of the test scores to 
other criteria of intelligence. 


ANALYSIS OF THE SCALE 


What components of general intelligence do the various tests in 
the scale measure? Or do they all measure the same thing? 
In an effort to answer this question, correlations were computed 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 39 


between the various tests, for six school groups, totalling 226 
children. 


Right Answers with Opposites ee 
Right Answers with Series Completion .43 
Right Answers with Form .40 
Opposites with Series Completion 34 
Opposites with Form .30 
Series Completion with Form .46 


Probable Error for each coefficient -+.04 


Since all the tests correlate positively with each other, it is evi- 
dent that all test some common ability, or at least abilities which 
have a common origin. What this common element is can be deter- 
mined only by an analysis of the tests themselves. 

One common component is the ability to associate verbal direc- 
tions with pictorial forms and with motor acts. To reduce to a 
minimum the dependence of successful performance on an under- 
‘standing of English words, the instructions are supplemented with 
dramatic demonstration of the procedure required. But in the 
Right Answers test the language factor still remains an essential 
one. That limited ability to understand English, however, is not an 
absolute bar to the usefulness of the test is apparent from the 
scores obtained in School J, in the Italian neighborhood. Rarely 
is there found a home in this neighborhood using any other lan- 
guage but Italian. Acquaintance with English is practically limited 
to the school and playground experience. In the beginning class of 
the first grade there are many children who speak no English, and 
numerous zero scores are made in this grade. This may be due to 
language defect, or to inability to meet other conditions of the test, 
such as sustained attention, etc. The writer’s experience in giving 
the test inclines him to consider the latter a large factor. That the 
language defect is not the only cause for such low scores seems 
evident from the fact that the form and direction of the median 
curve from grade to grade resembles closely the curve for schools 
where the language difficulty is not present. The J school curve is, 
of course, very much lower than those of other schools through- 
out its length, but the difference between the curve for this school 


40 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


and that of the E system, for example, does not decrease in the 
third and fourth grades where the language difficulty has been 
overcome. The lower score in this school cannot be entirely due, 
therefore, to language difficulties, but is evidently a consequence 
either of difference in native endowment of this particular stock, 
or to environmental causes, such as defective nutrition and home 
care, which are all too common in this community. 

Besides the language factor, the four tests have in common cer- 
tain attention elements, such as ability to hold the “mental set” in- 
duced by the instructions until the responses are made. As will be 
shown later, the type of attention required varies from test to 
test. Ability to inhibit response pending decision is also involved. 
Akin to this is the attitude of revision or correction of judgments, 
the “self-criticism” factor. A certain very limited degree of motor 
control is involved, although both in devising and scoring the tests, 
measures have been taken to reduce this to a minimum. 

But that the four tests do not measure the same thing crown 
out is evident from the variation between the coefficients. Let us 
analyze the tests to see what these differences signify. 

The Right Answers test group measures a variety of abilities, 
although all have certain elements in common, viz.: apprehension 
of meaning of a concrete situation verbally described, frequent 
redirection of attention, discriminative reactions, as well.as such 
more specialized abilities as judgment of means to end (No’s. 2, 
3, 6, 8), spatial judgments (4, 5, 7, 8), a certain amount of in- 
formation about common objects (2, 3, 6, 9), etc. It is interesting 
to note the difference in the content of information revealed in 
such a simple test as this. In school J (Italian), first grade children 
almost without exception failed to make any response, right or 
wrong, on No. 6 of this test, an arrow being an object totally out- 
side their experience and vocabulary, although this test occasioned 
no such difficulty in any other first grade groups. In. No. 9 a very 
frequent response to the instruction to put a circle around the 
church and a cross on the factory was to put a cross on the steeple 
of the church, surely a not inexplicable response in a neighbor- 
hood where every church bears such a symbol. 

The Right Answers test resembles the Series Completion test 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 41 


(.43) more than it does the Form test (.40) or Opposites (.33). 
They involve in common a diversity of attack on the successive 
elements in the test which is not characteristic of either the Oppo- 
sites or Form tests. The latter tests require a definite preliminary 
“set,” which has to be maintained throughout the minute allotted 
to the test, while the Right Answers test (and to a lesser degree 
the Completion test) call for a response whose form, as well as 
spatial location, varies from one element to the next. That is, the 
Right Answers and Completion tests require constant motor re- 
adaptations. For some, this proves easier than the maintenance of 
a fixed set; for others, it is probably more confusing. 

The Series Completion and Form tests, which show a definite 
correlation (.46), resemble one another closely in that both test 
particularly the ability to perceive space relationships (form, size, 
direction), since more of the elements in the Completion test in- 
volve spatial relations than numerical relations. There are, how- 
ever, distinct differences between them. One difference is in the 
mental set (already mentioned) with which one attacks them. In 
the Form test, as in the Opposites, the attention set up by the in- 
structions calls merely for attention to the perceptual-analytic fac- 
tor,—the form of the blocks to be fitted together,—the response 
being more or less automatic. Attention is maintained more tensely 
focussed than in the Completion tests, where it alternates between 
perceptual-analytic processes and motor response. Hence, the ten- 
dency found frequently in younger children to start well but quick- 
ly degenerate into a stereotyped response occurs more frequently 
in the Opposites and Form tests than in the Series completion, and 
is indicative of failure to hold attention on the instructions given. 

But besides a difference in the type of attention demanded in the 
Form and Completion tests, there is clearly a difference in the 
mental processes involved. The Form test requires a comparison of 
forms (and in a few cases, of size), but involves only a selection of 
one among four which are already present. The Completion test, 
on the other hand, requires not only comparison of forms, but two 
other acts not involved in the Form test; first, the abstraction of 
the significant relationship element which determines the nature of 
this series; and second, the constructive embodiment of this rela- 


9 


42 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


tionship in a mark of definite size or form or both. Failures in this 
test appear to be rarely or never due to lack of motor ability, but 
either to inability to perceive the relational element (revealed in 
the omission of certain tests), or else failure to get the significant 
element, revealed in a response which bears some of the character- 
istics of correctness, but lacks others, as for example, marks of the 
right shape but wrong size. 

The Completion test and Opposites test are the two single tests 
which, in the preliminary tryout, showed the highest correlation 
with mental age (.58). But that they do not test exactly the same 
ability seems apparent, not only from the moderate degree of cor- 
relation (.34) between them, but from an analysis of the tests 


themselves. The difference in type of attention involved has already 


been described. What has just been said about the mental processes 
involved in the Completion test is of significance in a comparison 
with the Opposites test. Both in common involve ability to abstract 
from each group of pictures or forms some relational element, an 
ability, certainly, which is one of the largest components of gen- 
eral intelligence as we daily recognize it in people. But beyond this, 
the two tests call for quite different types of mental reaction. 
Whereas, in the Completion test, the abstracted element has to be 
embodied by the child in a definite kind of mark, in the Opposites 
test a contrast-association response must follow; but because of 
the difficulty in drawing the contrasting object (and scoring such 
drawings) the response is made to take the form of selection of 
one froma group of possibilities, and a simple mark of designation 
of the one selected. Thus, the motor element in the Opposites test 
is considerably less than in the Completion test. Analysis of papers 
shows errors in the Opposites test to fall in one of three general 
classes: first, those due to inability to get or hold instructions in 
mind long enough to perform the complicated mental act required, 
manifesting itself either in a wholly stereotyped response or in a 
response correct at first but quickly degenerating into stereotyped 
form; second, apparent inability to make the required abstraction 
and contrast-association, in which a non-stereotyped but wholly 
unintelligent series of marks is made (often, of course, it is diffi- 
cult or impossible to determine which of these two causes is operat- 


a — oe 


i 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 43 


ing); third, an intelligent attack, but with occasional errors due 
to making a wrong abstraction, and hence a wrong response. Thus, 
the child may mark the horizontal arrow instead of the inverted 
arrow, or the diagonal straight line instead of the curved line, 
both these errors occurring occasionally, although infrequently, in 
the papers of children making high scores. 

In the opinion of the writer, the value of the series of Right 
Answers tests is twofold. The correlation coefficient shows that it 
has considerable significance as a test of intelligence when taken 
alone, but much more when taken in conjunction with other tests. 
Thus, its addition to the other three tests of the scale produces a 
higher correlation with mental age (see Table III) than is obtained 
by the three tests alone. Besides this, its character makes it peculi- 
arly fitted for an introductory test. It has variety to awaken and 
sustain interest. Its constant incentive to quick response promotes 
an attitude favorable to good scores in the other tests. It helps the 
_child get acquainted with the examiner and his ways. It gives him 
preliminary practice in making responses by marking. It minimizes 
the penalty for failure to “warm up” to the test, in that the child 
loses only three points for failure to get himself adjusted to the 
instructions, where such failure on one of the other parts would 
mean much greater loss. There are probably fewer failures on later 
parts than there would be were it not for this preliminary test, 
although we do not have data to verify this belief. 

By what psychological method the individual child goes about 
making his responses, whether through visual, motor, or vocal 
imagery, we do not, of course, have data to determine. In the 
author’s mind, there is no doubt that a variety of methods are 
used. Vocalization doubtless is of much assistance, especially in 
the Opposites test, where it is distinctly advantageous to have 
names for the different objects pictured, and where lip movements, 
or even whispered articulations are constantly noticeable. On the 
various Right Answers tests, children are frequently observed to 
make preliminary tentative finger responses, and when satisfied, re- 
peat and record the response with pencil. In the ball-on-table test, 
children occasionally draw a line showing the path of the ball. 

An examination of the papers reveals another significant fact, 


44 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


namely, that in papers of children of high score, one frequently 
finds erasures and corrections, indicating criticism and revision of 
the first hasty judgments. On the other hand, the examiner comes 
soon to recognize a type of child, of mediocre score, who rushes 
through the test, finishes ahead of the others, and then waits for 
time to be called, without taking any pains to improve his efforts. 
This is nothing more than saying, as Binet said, that one charac- 
teristic of general intelligence is the power of self-criticism. 

It is interesting to note how the other two characteristics of gen-- 
eral intelligence, as Binet conceived it, are revealed by an analysis 
of this test. The tendency of intelligence to take and maintain a 
definite direction is revealed in marked fashion in the way in 
which the abler child holds in mind the instructions for such tests 
as the Opposites, while the child of less ability frequently forgets 
them after making one or two correctly. The “capacity to make 
adaptations for the purpose of attaining a desired end” is, of 
course, the ability which leads to the discriminative and selective 
acts and the varied types of response which the various tests de- 
mand. 

It seems evident that no one of these tests,—and indeed, no 
single brief test of any sort,—can measure all phases of that com- . 
posite general ability which we call general intelligence. The adap- 
tations which the intelligent person makes in the effort to attain his 
ends are highly varied in character to meet the varying materials 
with which he works and the varying ends which he seeks; and 
they require very diverse types of mental activity, even in the ear- 
lier years of life. The highest test scores are not made by the same 
combination of actions, which is to say, equally intelligent people 
do not attack their problems in exactly the same way, nor show 
abilities equal in every respect. Hence, a variety of tests must be 
used in order to touch the several phases of general intelligence. 

How many tests are necessary for this purpose is a matter of 
dispute. It seems to be the belief of Thorndike, Otis, and others, 
embodied in such scales as the Army Alpha Tests, the Columbia 
College Entrance Tests, etc., that there must be many tests (since 
there are so many special abilities that go to make up general 
ability). This may, in some cases, make for slightly higher co- 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 45 


efficients of correlation than scales comprising fewer tests. But it is 
open to question whether, after all, such elaborate forms of scale, 
with all their refinements of statistical method, are in practice pre- 
ferable to briefer and more easily administered tests. The value of 
the long, elaborate scale seems greater in the upper years where 
test makers have generally found their greatest difficulties. But in 
the earlier years, where the variety of mental operations by which 
the child makes his relatively simple adaptations is so much smaller 
and less complex, there is reason to question the superiority of such 
a type of scale. Particularly is this true with group tests, where the 
physical limitations of childhood make a brief test practically in- 
dispensable. 

Of significant bearing on this problem are the coefficients of 
correlation cited in Table III, which show that a group of six tests 
is not superior as a measure of mental ability to any combination 
of four tests chosen from among them. We are probably not war- 
ranted in concluding that six are inferior to four, save as they 
would lengthen the test period and make for fatigue and loss of 
interest. The six tests on which the correlations are based were, 
be it remembered, given in two periods of three tests each, about 
twenty-minute periods, so fatigue and waning interest did not op- 
erate to reduce the scores made. Nevertheless, the validity for the 
six combined is slightly lower than that of four, if the coefficients 
mean what they appear to mean. 

This is by no means to say that a single scale of this sort pro- 
vides as valid and reliable a measure of general intelligence as can 
be obtained. The writer’s belief is distinctly to the contrary. He 
hopes that much more adequate scales than this may be devised, 
if they have not already been devised. As was suggested earlier, 
one of the urgent immediate needs is a thoroughgoing comparative 
study of different types of test material and scales for group test- 
ing of primary children, as well as for children of higher grades. 

But beyond this, no single test will permit every child to make 
as high a score as his ability warrants, because not every child is 
in the most favorable physical and mental condition at the same 
time. Moreover, as has been previously suggested, the group 
method of testing, with all its conveniences and economy, prob- 


46 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


ably can never be so reliable a measure of a child’s ability as an 
individual test, where the examiner can take whatever time and 
measures are necessary to get a maximum of response from the 
child. A distraction during the giving of a group test instructions 
may cause a child to miss an essential point and lower his score. 
It is, therefore, an undesirable practice to make the child’s peda- 
gogical or social future dependent on the results of a single twenty- 
or thirty- or even sixty-minute test. Our analysis of the psycho- 
logical factors which make for success or failure in life is still too 
theoretical to warrant staking so much on a single score figure. 
The greatest danger to the mental testing movement is from the 
over-enthusiasm of its undiscriminating advocates, which sooner 
or later must lead to a disastrous reaction against the whole educa- 
tional measurement movement, if not tempered by conservative 
judgment. 

The test score, nevertheless, has its distinct and valuable func- 
tion, and that is, to aid the teacher or parent or other responsible 
adult to a correct diagnosis of the child’s actual ability. After all, 
no disposition of a child’s case, either by irregular promotion, non- 
promotion with class, assignment to special class, school, or in- 
stitution, should be made save as a result of an extended, careful, 
intelligent, and sympathetic diagnosis of the child’s whole per- 
sonality, character, and abilities, both special and general, While 
no test score can ever serve as a reliable substitute for this, a good 
test score can be of material aid in making such uiagnosis, by con- 
firming the teacher’s judgment, or by contradicting it one way or 
the other and leading to a more careful and truer analysis. For 
such purposes, evidently, two or more test scores, obtained at dif- 
ferent times and under varying conditions would be better than 
one, however good that one might be. It would seem, then, espe- 
cially after the development of group scales making possible larger 
economies, that a testing program in any school should call for 
several intelligence tests, especially during the early years of the 
child’s school career, supplemented by such physical, educational, 
volitional, and other tests as are useful. 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 47 


APPENDIX I 
ADDITIONAL RigHt ANSWERS TEsts USED 


The illustrations (Plates I to VI) show the tests used in this 
investigation. Plates I to 1V show the final form of the scale. The 
preliminary group form included the four parts of the final scale 
(I. Right Answers, II. Opposites, III. Series Completion, IV. 
Form test), and in addition, V. Associated Objects test (Plate V ) 
and VI. Analogies test (Plate VI). 

The Right Answers test used in the preliminary group form 
included also eight additional tests, listed in Table 2, which were 
eliminated and not counted in computing the correlations in which 
the Right Answers test appears. These eight tests are not illus- 
trated here, not being considered worth further investigation in 
their present form, but they may be briefly described and their in- 
structions summarized, as follows: 

No. 11. “‘Tools.” Pictures of square, drawknife, saw, compass, 
hammer. “Which tool does the carpenter use to drive nails?” 

No. 12. “Toys.” Pictures of trumpet, drum, bicycle, dog, tool- 
box. “Which of these Christmas presents can Robert ride ?”’ 

No. 13. “Animals to Eat.” Pictures of dog, rabbit, frog, horse, 
owl. “Which animal is best for the hungry man, lost in the woods, 
to catch and cook for his dinner ?” 

No. 14. “Rectangle.” Rectangle 1” x 2”. “Draw a line which 
will divide this oblong into two squares.”’ Eliminated early because 
too easy, unless scoring standard were made too rigid to be prac- 
ticable or desirable. 

No. 15. “Heavy and Light Objects.’”’ Pictures of hand-axe, 
feather, book, basket, pencil. ““Draw a line around the heaviest ob- 
ject, and a line under the lightest object.’ Eliminated early, be- 
cause instructions were found to suggest response too readily; also 
because some uncertainty whether basket pictured would not be 
as heavy as some handaxes. 

No, 16. “Animals.” Same picture as demonstration test, No. 1. 
“Which animal frightened the man?” 

No. 17. “Tools to Cut.” Pictures of shears, hatchet, saw, butch- 
er-knife, pocket-knife. ““Which tool is best to use in cutting a board 
to mend the fence?” 


48 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


APPENDIX II 


INSTRUCTIONS FOR GIVING PRIMARY GROUP TEST 


(Examiner should familiarize himself thoroughly with instruc- 
tions before undertaking to give the test. ) 


PRELIMINARY 


See that all pupils have pencils. Desks should be cleared. Ascertain in advance 
the method of ‘collecting papers customarily used in the room, so that after 
the test the papers can be taken up without delay. Say: 


Now we are going to play a sort of a little game together, with 
pencils and pictures. The pictures are in these folders I am going 
to pass you. I want you to leave them lying on your desks, and 
not touch them, or turn the pages, or do anything to them, until 


I have told you just what to do. 

It will be necessary throughout to guard carefully against children’s marking 
when they should not, or looking ahead while instructions are being given. Do 
not hesitate at any moment to remind them, “Don’t mark till I tell you,” or, 
“Everybody lay your pencils down,” or, “Look at me,” etc. For the same rea- 
son, have papers taken up as quickly as possible after the test is finished. 

Distribute folders, laying them face up on desks. Warn pupils again not to 
open them or turn pages. When all are distributed, hold one up and, pointing 
to name line, ask pupils to write their names on the line; then, pointing to age- 
line, says, “Put here the figure that tells how old you are.” If the children can- 
not write their names, it should be done by the teacher before folders are dis- 
tributed. 

The other data called for on page 1 may be supplied by pupils at this time, 
if time and ability to write permit. In the first grade, and often in higher grades, 
it is more economical of time to omit this and supply data at the examiner’s 
convenience from records furnished by the teacher or noted on one of the 
folders by himself. In this case he should enter on each folder used a “key” 
number or symbol, in the space at right marked “Lot No.,” to designate all 
folders used in a given room at one time. If more than one examiner is giving 
tests, the key number may be prefixed with the examiner’s initial; thus, “J-1” 
may mean the first test given by Miss Johnson; “B-12,” the twelfth test given 
by Miss Brown. Because of children’s difficulties in spelling names of months, 
as well as because fractional parts of a year have not been used in norms, 
birthday has not been asked for. If this datum is desired, it can be secured from 
school records and entered in right-hand blank marked “C.A.”—chronological 
age—in years and months. Blanks are also provided for recording date of giv- 
ing the test, child’s mental age, intelligence quotient, and teacher’s estimate of 
his intelligence, if these are available. In some cases it has been found neces- 
sary to check up pupils’ statements of their ages with the school records, par- * 
ticularly in neighborhoods where many children leave school at the earliest 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 49 


legal age, and a tendency to overstate the child’s age is prevalent in the com- 
munity. 

It is extremely important that the time allowance for each test be rigidly 
observed. Use stop-watch if possible; if not, use second-hand on watch. Do not 
allow one second too much or too little time. Failure to keep time allowance 
with precision destroys the: possibility of comparison of scores with other 
groups, and may invalidate comparison within the group itself, by allowing 
slow children to continue and catch up after quick children have finished, thus 
concealing differences which really exist. Don’t expect pupils to get through in 
time allowed, or even to get far along. The time has purposely been made so 
short that very few third-grade children can finish parts IJ, III, or IV in the 
time allowed. 

On Part I (Right Answers) the examiner should have some preliminary 
practice on counting seconds so that he can time these tests accurately and 
easily without looking at his watch. One suggested device is to repeat silently, 
“one-chimpanzee, two-chimpanzee, three-chimpanzee, four-chimpanzee,” etc., 
or use some other polysyllabic word which cannot be enunciated too rapidly. 
Practice with a watch, before undertaking to give the test, for several fifteen 
or thirty-second periods, to get the counting rate uniform and natural. Time 
should be counted from the last word of instruction for each of the tests in 
Part I. 


After blanks have been filled by pupils, say: 

Now lay your pencils down, look at me, and listen carefully 
while I tell you what we are going to do. In these folders are some 
pictures and drawings; we are all going to do certain things with 
them; I will tell you just what to do, and I want to see if you can 
do exactly what I tell you, and how quickly you can do it. Now 
nobody must look to see what anybody else is doing, because that 
wouldn’t be fair. We want to see what you can do all by yourself. 
Listen very carefully to all I say, so you will be sure to hear the 
first time. Don’t turn any pages until I tell you to. And don’t ask 
me any questions; if there are any things too hard, or that you 
don’t understand, skip them and do the rest. But just do the very 
best you can, and do the things as quickly as you can without mak- 
ing any mistakes. That is what the game is. 

Now we will all look at this first page. 


I, Right Answers Test 
I am going to tell you some little stories and ask you some ques- 
tions, and I want you to answer them by marking the right picture 
in the way I shall tell you. First I will tell you one and mark it, so 
you can see how. 


eg FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


Look at number 1, up in this corner (point). 


1. As I walked through the woods one day, I saw these five animals. One was 
flying from tree to tree. Draw a circle around the picture of the one that was 
flying from tree to tree. 


Which should it be ? Why, the bird, of course, because that is the 
only one that can fly. Take your pencils and mark a circle around 
the bird, like this (mark). It doesn’t have to be a good circle, just 
a ring around it, so I can tell that you know which one is right. 
Now don’t mark any more till I tell you. As I tell you the rest, you 
will have to work as quickly as you can without making a mistake. 
Don’t answer aloud, but just answer by marking in the right place. 

Look at number 2, the hats in the next picture (point). 

2. When the weather turned cold, a man went to the clothes closet to find 
what to wear on his head. Here are the hats and caps he found. Which is best 
to wear on a very cold day? Draw a circle around it. (Five seconds) 

Look at number 3, this next picture (point). 

3. Helen’s mother left her at home to take care of the baby. The baby cried, 
so Helen went to find something for the baby to play with. Which of these 
things may Helen let the baby play with? Draw a circle around the two things 
the baby may have. (Eight seconds) 

Look at number 4, at the beginning of the next row; this lot of 
circles (point). 

4. Draw a line from the largest circle to the smallest circle. (Eight seconds.) 

Look at number 5, these dots in the next picture (point). 


5. Henry was on his way home from school, when he dropped seven pennies 
on the sidewalk. Here they are, lying just as they fell; each dot is one penny. 
Before he picked them up, he said, “Look! there are three of the pennies in a 
straight row!” Draw a straight line touching the three pennies that are in a 
row. (Ten seconds) 


Look at number 6, the next picture, right beside it (point). 
6. Finish the arrow. (Five seconds) 
Look at number 7, down in this lower corner, the table (point). 


7. Here is a table, with a ball on the edge of it, and some blocks on the floor 
below. If the ball should roll off the table, which block would it strike? Mark a 
cross on the block it will strike. (Five seconds) 


Look at number 8, next picture, middle of the bottom row 
(point). 
8. Here is Francis, just starting for school. You see four paths leading from 


Francis to the school-house. It is almost school time, and Francis will have ° 
to take the shortest path and hurry to keep from being late. Which path should 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 51 


he take to be sure to get to school on time? Mark a line along the path he 
should take. (Eight seconds) 


Look at number 9, these buildings down in the corner (point). 


9g. Mr. Brown is a minister, or preacher (or “priest,” in some communities) ; 
Mr. Jones runs a machine which makes furniture. Here are pictures of the 
buildings in which they work, and some other buildings besides. Draw a circle 
around the picture-of the building where the minister (priest) works, and put 
a cross on the one where the furniture maker works; a circle around the one 
where the minister works, a cross on the one where the furniture maker works. 
(Eight seconds) 


Now everybody stop, put your pencils down, and watch me. 
(Wait till you see all have laid pencils down.) Now, turn the page, 
and fold it backward, like this (demonstrate). Then lay it down 
so this page of pictures (Opposites test) is on top. 

(It is well to pass rapidly along aisles as children are turning 
the pages and see that each child has the right page on top; some 
confuse it with the Completion test.) 


II. Opposites Test 

Here are some queer pictures, several rows of them, with one 
picture in the square at the beginning of each row. You see there 
are two sets of rows on this page, these (point) and these (point), 
so each row goes only half way across the page. Now in each row 
there is one picture which is more different from the one in the 
square than any of the others. That is the same as saying it is the 
opposite of the one in the square. I wonder if we can find it in each 
row ? Look here, and I’ll show you what I mean. 

See, in this first row (point) we have a Jong line in the square, 
then three shorter lines in the row (point to each). This middle 
one (point) is the shortest, so it is the most different from the one 
in the square, which is the longest. So I take my pencil and draw 
a circle around it (mark), because it 1s most different, or opposite, 
from the one in the square. Now everybody take your pencils and 
draw a circle around this shortest line, the middle one. Now lay 
your pencils down. (See that all lay pencils down. ) 

Now look at the second row. See, in this square (point) we have 
a black spot; then after it come three other spots. Which of these 
other three spots is most different from the black spot? Why, this 
white one (point to last), of course, because white is the opposite 


52 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


of black. So I mark a circle around it (mark). Everybody take 
pencils and draw a circle around the white spot. Now lay your 
pencils down and look at me. 

Now listen carefully. After I tell you to begin, I want you to 
look carefully at the picture in the square in the next row, then at 
the three pictures after it, and see which one is most different, or 
opposite, from the one in the square, and draw a circle around it, 
just as we did with these others. Don’t mark until I tell you; 
leave your pencils on the desk. Then do the same with the rest. Do 
all on this page, both columns, these (point to first column) and 
these (point to second column). If you find any you can’t do, skip 
them. Work as fast as you can without making any mistakes. 

Ready, take pencils, BEGIN. . 

(One minute) 

STOP. Lay your pencils down, everybody. (See that all stop.) 
Now watch me; turn your folder right over (demonstrate) like 
this, so this (hold up page 3, “Completion,”’ toward pupils) will 
be on top. (Some children will start to turn page instead of folder, 
so be on guard against this. ) 


III. Series Completion Test 


Here are several rows of drawings of different kinds. In each 
row there is a blank space, sometimes two blank spaces, where a 
drawing has been left out which is needed to finish the row. I 
wonder if we can figure out what is left out in each row? 

Look carefully at this first row (point). Here are a lot of 
straight lines, one after the other, all alike, except that they get 
shorter as we go across the page. This (point) is the longest; this 
(point to each in turn) is shorter, this still shorter, shorter, short- 
er, shorter,—and then the blank space. Now what should we put in 
the blank space to finish the row nicely? Why, a little, short line, 
shorter than any of the others, like this (mark). Everybody take 
pencils and mark one on your paper in this blank space. Now the 
row is finished. Lay your pencils down. 

Now look at this second row. Here (point, successively) we 


have an O, and X, O, X, O, blank space, and O. What should go in » 


the blank space? Why, an X, of course, because we skipped the 


i i 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE. FOR PRIMARY GRADES 53 


X that goes between the O’s. So we put an X here (mark), and the 
line is finished. Take pencils and mark an X on your folder. Now 
lay down your pencils and look at me. 

After I tell you to begin, I want you to look carefully at the 
drawings in each row, make up your mind what is left out from 
the blank space, or blank spaces, then take your pencil and draw 
in whatever has been left out, so the row will be finished. Don’t 
mark until I tell you. Do all on this page, both columns, these 
(point), and these (point). If there are any you can’t do, skip 
them. Work as fast as you can without making any mistakes. 

Ready, take pencils, BEGIN. 

(One and one-half minutes) 

STOP. Everybody lay your pencils down. Watch me. Now, 
turn the page over and fold it back like this (demonstrate), so this 
page (hold up fourth page toward pupils) will be on top. 


IV. Form Test 


Here are several rows of drawings we will call blocks. You see, 
in each row, at the beginning of the row (point), a queerly shaped 
block, followed by four other blocks. 

Now, in each row, we want to make the block at the beginning 
of the row into a solid square block, by fitting up against it, or 
fitting in with it, one of the other blocks in that row, so that to- 
gether they will make a solid square block like this one (point) at 
the top of the page. I wonder if we can find the right one to use in 
each row ? 

Look carefully at this folder I have, and I will show you what 
I mean. See, in this first row (point), the block at the beginning 
of the row is three-cornered. Which one of the blocks in the row 
is shaped so it could be fitted up against this first block to make a 
square? Why, this last one; none of the others would do; they are 
not the right shape. (Note: it is advisable to sketch outlines of 
blocks in this and the other demonstration on the blackboard, as 
you talk, close to each other, thus: YA .) So I draw a circle 
around this last block (mark), because it is the right one to use. 
Everybody take pencils and draw a circle around this block. Now 
lay your pencils down. 


54 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


Now look at the next row. See this curved block (point), shaped 
like a letter “D’’, at the beginning of the row. Now which of these 
other blocks, one, two three, four (pointing), would fit in with this 
to make a square? Why, this second one would; see, it is curved 
in (draw on blackboard and point to curves as referred to), so it 
would fit right against this side which is curved owt (point), so to- 
gether they would make a perfect square. So I draw a circle around 
this second block (mark), the one with the two sharp points on it, 
because it is the right one to use in this row. Everybody take pen- 
cils and draw a circle around it. Now lay your pencils down and 
look this way. 

After I tell you to begin, look carefully at the block at the begin- 
ning of each row, so you'll remember its shape; then see which one 
of the other blocks in that row will fit in with it to make a solid 
square block; then draw a circle around the right one, as we did 
with these first two. Don’t mark until I tell you. Do all on the page, 
both columns, these (point), and these (point). If there are any 
too hard, skip them; work as fast as you can without making mis- 
takes. 

Ready, take pencils, BEGIN. 

(One minute) 

STOP. Everybody lay your pencils down. Now turn your 
folders over, so your name will be on top, and we will take them 
up. (Collect folders promptly.) | 


Instructions for Associated Objects Test, Preliminary Series. 


Here are some pictures in rows, with one picture in a square at 
the beginning of each row. Now in each row there are pictures of 
either one or two things that belong with, or go with, the thing 
in the square. In some rows there is one, in some rows two; so 
you must look carefully at each picture to make sure you don’t 
miss anything. 

See, in this first row, we have in this square (point), a table- 
knife. Then in the row we have (pointing to each) a watch, a 
radiator, a fork, a spoon, and a flag. Now which of these belong 
with the knife? Why, the fork and spoon, of course; we always 
find knife, fork, and spoon going together. So we draw a circle 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 55 


around the fork and one around the spoon (mark). Everybody 
take pencil and draw a circle around the fork and one around the 
spoon. Now put your pencils down. 

Now look at the second row. In the square we have (point) a 
soldier. Now which of these things in the row belong with the 
soldier? Why, the gun, of course. So we put a circle around the 
gun, like this (mark). Everybody do that. Now lay your pencils 
down, and look at me. 

After I tell you to begin, I want you to look carefully in each 
row for the one thing or the two things that go with the thing in 
the square at the beginning of that row, and then mark a circle 
around those things. Don’t mark until I tell you. Look carefully at 
all the pictures in each row to make sure you don’t miss anything. 
Work as quickly as you can without making mistakes. If there are 
any you don’t understand, skip them. 

Ready, take pencils, BEGIN. 

(One and one-half minutes ) 


pL Pe 


Instructions for Analogies Test, Preliminary Series. 


Here are several rows of drawings of different shapes. In each 
row there are three drawings and then a blank space (point, I, 2, 
3, 4). Now what we want to do is this: draw in each blank space 
something that compares with the third thing in the same way 
that the second thing compares with the first thing. Look here; 
something that compares with this (point) in the same way that 
this (point) compares with this (point). Now listen closely, and 
watch me, and I will show you what I mean. 

Here in this first row we have, first, a large circle (draw figures 
on blackboard as you talk) ; second, a small circle; third, a large 
square; fourth, a blank space. Now how is this first thing (point) 
like this second thing (point) ? Why, they are both the same shape, 
aren't they? Now how are they different from each other? Why, 
they are different in size, aren’t they,—one large, the other small? 
That is what I mean by “compares.” Now what is it that com- 
pares with this (point), the large square, in the same way that 
the small circle compares with the large circle? Why, a small 


56 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


square, of course, same shape, smaller size. So I draw in the blank. 
space a small square, because it compares with the large square in 
the same way the small circle compares with the large circle. Every- 
body draw a small square. 

Now look at this next row (point). Here we have a U-shaped 
drawing (draw on blackboard); second, the same thing, but 
up-side-down,; third, this sort of square with the top line off; . 
fourth, blank space. Now what can we put in the blank space that 
compares with this third thing (point) in the same way this second 
thing (point) compares with the first? Why, this thing (point) 
turned up-side-down, just as the second U is turned up-side down. 
Everybody draw one like this (mark). Do you see what I mean? 

Now, after I say “Begin,” look carefully at the drawings in the 
next row; then decide what compares with the third thing in the 
same way the second compares with the first, and draw it in the 
blank space. Then do the same with all the other rows. If there are 
any you can’t do, skip them. | 

Ready, take pencils, BEGIN. 

(Two minutes ) 


SOE; 


APPENDIX III 
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SCORING PRIMARY GROUP TEST 


With aid of scoring key held in left hand against the successive 
pages of the scale, check responses on the test blank, in right hand 
margin of Part I, and center and right hand margins (i.¢., those 
at right of each column) in other parts. Check “R” (or \/) for 
right responses, ““W” (or X) for wrong responses. Number 1 in 
Part 1, and the first two in each of the other parts, being used for 
demonstration purposes, are not scored. The various parts are 
weighted as follows: 

Part 1 (Right Answers). The number of rights is multiplied 
by three, and the product entered at top of page I, opposite 
“id, Rights ax 20/3 

Part 2 (Opposites). Both rights and wrongs should be scored, 
half the number of wrongs subtracted from the number of rights, 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 57 


the difference multiplied by two, and entered at top of page I, op- 
posite “2. (R — 144 W) x 2.” This partial deduction of errors is 
made to offset the one-in-three chance that the child will mark 
any row correctly by mere guesswork. Thus, if he marked twelve 
tests by pure chance, or in some stereotyped form of response 
(e.g., marking first in each row), he would probably get four right 
and eight wrong, which, corrected as above described, would give 
him a zero score; whereas a smaller proportion of errors would 
give hima plus score, although not so large as if he made no errors. 
A minus score, due to making more than twice as many wrong 
responses as right, is entered as a zero score. (An alternative meth- 
od, giving the same result, but avoiding subtraction of fractions, 
is to multiply the number of rights by two and subtract from it 
the number of wrongs, entering difference on page I.) 

Part 3 (Series Completion). The number of rights is multiplied 
by two and entered at top of page 1. No deduction is made for er- 

_rors, since chance of a successful response by merely guessing is 
very slight. 

Part 4 (Form). The number of rights is multiplied by two and 
entered at top of page 1. No deduction is made for errors, since 
chance of successful response by guessing is small (one in four), 
and has been found to be negligible in practice. 

A perfect score is 100, and would be obtained as follows: 





Part 1, 8 elements (omitting number 1) weighted by 3, total 24 
EOL A ae Oar ae first two) v ae Pe ake 2G 
ce ce ce ce “ce ce ce se 
3, 12 ) Bead 

ce ce ce ce ce iss ce ‘ce 
4, 12 ( ) 2, 24 
100 


There are no fractional scores. 


DETAILED SCORING INSTRUCTIONS 


(Supplementing Key) 
PARTEE 


In all cases where two objects are marked and only one should be 
(whether right one is one of those marked or not), score W. 


58 FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


In all cases where only one object is marked and two should be 
(whether one marked is right or not), score W. 

No. 4. Any line connecting the two circles is R. Merely indicat- 
ing the two circles is W. 

No. 5. Line must connect the three correct dots, but need not be 
straight. 

No. 6. Shaft of arrow must run back to notch at left end of 
feathering, but not beyond, and must run forward to head; need 
not be straight. 

No. 7. Any mark that clearly Het the correct block is R. 

No. 8. Any mark that clearly designates correct path is R. 

No. 9. Marks designating church and factory must be such as 
can be liberally interpreted as “circle” and “cross” respectively. 
Interchanging, omission, or marking any in addition to the two di- 
rected, is W. 





PARTS 2 AND 4 


Interpret “draw a circle” liberally; any unambiguous mark of 
designation is acceptable. 

If drawing in square (part 2) or at beginning of row (part 4) 
alone is marked, score W. If both it and correct response are 
marked, score R. If any other two (or more) are marked, score W. 


PART 3 


3rd row. (alternate vertical and horizontal lines). Line need be 
only approximately horizontal and straight. 

4th row. Circle must be larger in one dimension than adjacent 
printed circle, and not less than two-thirds as wide in other dimen- 
sion. 

5th row. Both blanks must be correctly filled. 

6th row. Square must be smaller in both dimensions than ad- 
jacent squares. Consider number of sides, rather than accuracy of 
shape. 

8th row (top of second column). Three dots in any arrange- 
ment, or figure “3”’, in circle. 

oth row. Two dots, any arrangement; no circle. 

1oth row. Circle smaller in at least one dimension than adjacent . 
circles. 


INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR PRIMARY GRADES 59 


11th row. Both blanks must be filled. Number, rather than exact 
form of marks, counts. 

12th row. Line must be vertical, or more nearly vertical than 
adjacent line, and should be at least half as long as other lines in 
row. 

14th row. Rectangle must be both longer and narrower (in at 
least half its length) than adjacent rectangle. 


Key to Associated Objects Test, Preliminary Series 


No. 1. Demonstration No. 9. Bow 
2. Demonstration 10. Leaf, Apple 
3. Nail 11. Mouse-trap 
LEIA SBA 12. Door, Padlock 
5. Spade, Hoe 13. Sign-post, Car 
6. Telephone Pole 14. Photograph 
7. Envelope, Letter 15. Arrow, Target 
8. Oar 16. Corn-stalk 


Interpret “draw a circle” liberally. 

If only one drawing is marked when two should be, score W. 

If more than one drawing (unless one be the drawing in square) 
is marked when only one should be, score W. 

If drawing.in square alone is marked, score W. If both it and 
the correct response are marked, score R. 

If one right and one wrong drawing are marked, score W. 


Key to Analogies Test, Preliminary Series. 


No. 1. Demonstration; not scored 

Demonstration ; not scored 

Large circle 

Short horizontal line 

Short vertical line 

Triangle inverted 

Circle enclosed in circle 

ee X 

Short diagonal line, same direction as drawing 2 


iN 


(Se) 


0 DN AHH 


10. 
\uZ 
12. 
Kz. 
14. 
IS; 
16. 


FORREST ALVA KINGSBURY 


5 x's, same arrangement as drawing 3 


Square or diamond 


Like drawing 3, but horizontal line to right of vertical 
Circle, approximately diameter of square 
Three squares, same arrangement as drawing 3 


Semicircle (empty ) 


Square, bottom line omitted er indented to center of 


square. 


ee 


att 


i (ee) 
i i) 


: g . i . a aa 
"1 f A 
i 
nd ‘4 An u 74 
4’ oe ‘ aii r 





mo ie e 
ape ab 


nt 


y 


i 

My 

¢ 4 
‘ 


oo 


awe ' 
Ny ah 








Wat 
Ley 
"aii 

ae r 











BF21 .P96 v.33 
The effect of manual guidance upon maze 


rhs 4 ; 3 ) 35 Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Library 


1 1012 00008 5433 








